1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra Through Krushna Gopal Jivandas Batra,Age 48 years, Occup. Service, R/o Shivaji Chowk Latur (Food Insptector) ...Appellant. (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS. Mujabuddin Bashamiyan Patel, Age 38 years,R/o Lamjana Ta.Ausa,District Latur.. ...Respondents (Ori.Accused ) ------------------------------------------ Mr. K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for Appellant. ------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) DATE : 7th September,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Criminal Case bearing Regular Criminal case No. 259/1991 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)Ausa. 2. The respondent was prosecuted on complaint filed by Food Inspector Krushna Gopal Jivandas Batra for alleged offences under sections 2(ia)(a),2(ia)(h),sections 7(1), 7(5) punishable under section 16(1)(A) and 16(1)(A)(2) of 2 the Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1995. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that Food Inspector Krushna Gopal Jivandas Batra visited the grocery shop of the respondent on 18th July,1991. He introduced himself as Food Inspector to the respondent. He visited the shop premises. He collected sample of 750 Grams of “Butter Dal” for the purpose of analysis. He divided the sample in three (3) equal parts of 250 grams each. He filled each of the part in clean,empty, and dry polythene bag. The polythene bags were closed by means of flame of a candle. Thereafter, each of the polythene bag was wrapped in thick Khaki paper. Both the ends of the wrapper were pasted by gum and paper slips were pasted thereon. The paper slips bore the Code number of the Legal Health Authority. The signatures of the panchas were obtained and that of the respondent was also taken on each of the sample packet. One of the sample packet was forwarded to the Public Analyst Pune alongwith specimen seal and details furnished in the Form No.7. The remaining two samples and copies of Form No.7 were submitted to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst gave report (Exh.24), which indicated that the sample of ‘Butter Dal’ was found to contain ‘Lakh Dal’ to the extent of 5.33 percent. Thus, the respondent contravened the Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 and for such reason, he came to be prosecuted. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. He came to the conclusion that offence was not duly proved and the 3 respondent deserved benefit of doubt. Consequently, the respondent was acquitted. 5. Heard learned A.P.P.Shri K.S.Patil for the State. None appeared for the respondent. 6. I have gone through the record and proceeding with the help of learned A.P.P. The main contention of Mr. Patil is that the respondent should not have been acquitted only because P.W.1 Surendra (Panch) did not support the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) failed to appreciate the version of Food Inspector. He contended that the acquittal is improper and bad-in-law. 7. There can not be two opinion about the legal position that corroboration to the version of the Food Inspector is not always necessary. Unless there is proper substratum , which is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt regarding veracity of the Food Inspector, there is no need to seek independent corroboration. The acquittal can not be rendered only because panch witnesses have not supported the version of the Food Inspector. Thus, this kind of reasoning recorded by the learned Magistrate is, ofcourse, unsustainable and bad-in-law. Though, the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is incorrect and improper yet main question is whether the alleged offence is duly proved on the basis of testimony of P.W.1 Krushnagopal Batra(Food Inspector). 8. At this juncture, I shall consider the recitals of the report (Exh.24) of the Public Analyst, Pune. The report purports to show that the Public Analyst noticed the 4 presence of ‘Lakh Dal” to the extent of 5.33 per cent in the sample of ‘Butter Dal’ which was forwarded to him. The opinion of the Public Analyst does not show that the ‘Butter Dal’ was found to be adulterated . What he opined is that the sample contained ‘Lakh Dal, hence it contravened Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955. The report of the Public Analyst does not speak about the contravention of any other provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. The standard as prescribed for the ‘Butter Dal’ is not specifically pointed out by the Food Inspector in the course of his statement nor it has been pointed out by the learned A.P.P. As regards contravention of Rule 44-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955, it is important to note that, the rules put embargo on sale of ‘Lakhdal’. It also prohibits mixture of ‘LakhDal’, which is referred to as ‘Kesari Dal, with Bengal Gram Dal or any other Dal. Thus, it is case of the prosecution that there is violation of Rule 44-A (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Basically, on plain reading of rule 44-A makes it amply clear that prohibition clamped vide rule 44-A would be applicable w.e.f. such a date as the State Government concerned may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. In the present case the Food Inspector did not refer to any notification issued by the State of Maharashtra which created the legal embargo from any specified date. In absence of such notification, it is difficult to say that, the respondent committed breach of Rule 44-A. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent can not be faulted with. The report of the Public Analyst does not show that such mixture of Butter Dal with ‘Lakh Dal’ was injurious to the human health . 5 10. For the foregoing reasons and considering the material on record, I deem it proper to hold that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal fails. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ) MTK/cri.APL.288.98