IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.740 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Shri Anand Tukaram Ghodake .. Respondent Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the appellant. Mr.D.J.Shinde for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21st March 2009. : 21st March 2009. : 21st March 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard learned A.P.P for the appellant. The respondent was prosecuted for offences punishable under section 7(i), 7(v) read with sections 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b), 2(ia)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Food Inspector on 01st November 1991 visited grocery shop of the respondent with independent witness Mr.Balkrishna (P.W.No.3). The complainant after following due procedure purchased 600 gms of turmeric powder by paying requisite price. He obtained receipt for the said price from the respondent. According to the complainant the turmeric powder was divided into (2) three equal parts of 200 gms each which were put in three dry, clean and empty bottles. Thereafter the bottles were corked tightly and the same were sealed. The panchnama was drawn and the samples were sent to public analyst as well as local health authority. The report of the analyst showed that the sample of turmeric powder contains rice starch. The Joint Commissioner granted consent for prosecuting the respondent as he was found selling adulterated food articles. A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on which process was issued. The respondent was charged and tried before the learned Magistrate. One of the grounds on which the learned Magistrate has passed order of acquittal is that though the complainant deposed before the Court that he had kept the samples in dry, clean and empty bottles, the said version did not inspire confidence. 2. The learned A.P.P has taken me through the complaint, notes of evidence and other material on record. She submitted that P.W.No.1 (complainant) has clearly deposed that he had transferred the three samples to dry, clean and empty bottles which were shown to the accused. She submitted that even evidence of the P.W.No.6 establishes this fact. Her submission is that there was substantial compliance made by the prosecution (3) with provisions of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). Her submission is that the report of the public analyst was duly proved and therefore it was established that the respondent was selling adulterated food products. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the evidence. P.W.No.1 is the complainant. He has deposed that the turmeric powder weighing 600 gms purchased by him from the respondent in his shop was divided into three equal parts and the same was filled in dry, clean and empty bottles. Thereafter, the bottles were duly closed by cork. He had put a seal on the lid above the cork. On this aspect the witness was cross-examined. He stated that the sampling process is carried out by sampling assistant under his supervision. He admitted that he was not aware as to who had cleaned the sample bottle. He admitted that it was important that while taking samples in the bottles, the said bottles are clean, dry and empty. He admitted that the fact that the bottles were shown to the accused is not mentioned in the panchnama. He admitted that before filling the samples of turmeric powder in the bottles, he had taken the same (4) on a brown paper. He admitted that the brown paper should be also clean, dry and empty. He stated that he did not think it necessary to mention the said fact in the panchnama. 4. Thus, the version of P.W.No.1 complainant is that he was not aware who had cleaned the sample bottles. P.W.No.2 Mallikarjun Shivgunde is the person who received the sample through sampling assistant. Therefore, he was obviously not aware whether the bottles were cleaned before the samples were filled in. P.W.No.3 is a panch witness. He stated that the Food Inspector sealed the samples in his presence. He stated that before taking sample the Food Inspector had shown the container to him which was clean. The witness has not stated that the bottles were dry. He has not deposed that the bottles were cleaned and dried in his presence. P.W.No.1, Food Inspector clearly admitted that he had not cleaned or dried the bottles in which samples were taken. He stated that he is not aware as to who had done the said job. The person who has allegedly cleaned and dried the bottles has not been examined. The requirement of Rule 14 has been held to be mandatory by this Court in the case of B.A.Sawant Vs. State of Maharahstra (1974 FAC 302). There is another (5) decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Dubey in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1976 decided on 15th April 1977. This was also a case where the Food Inspector had admitted that he himself had not cleaned or dried the bottles in which samples were taken and the same was done by the sampling assistant. This was a case where the said assistant was not examined to prove that the bottles were cleaned and dried. Therefore, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was compliance with Rule 14 of the said Rules. In the present case taking the prosecution evidence as it is, the fact that compliance was made with Rule 14 of the said Rules has not been established by the prosecution. Therefore, order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A.S.Oka,J)