((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra Appellant versus Navnitbhai K. Rayathatta & anr. Respondents Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for the appellant. Mr.Anwar Landge i/by Amin H. Solkar for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th March 2009 JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State in support of this appeal against acquittal. The respondents were charged for violation of section 7(i) read with section 2(ia) (a) read with section 2(ia)(m) punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. It will be necessary to refer to the case of prosecution in brief. The first respondent is carrying on business of stocking for sale as well as sale of the Pasturized Milk at Mumbai. ((-2-)) The second respondent is stated to be the licensee of the business and the premises. 3. On 8th June 1990, a Food Inspector visited the business premises of the first respondent. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of standardised milk for the purposes of test and analysis. The Food Inspector paid the price of the milk and obtained cash memo for the same. The sample was collected in a dry tin and empty pot which was further divided into three equal parts of 250 ml. each and put each part in three dry, clean and empty glass bottles. Formalin solution was added in each of the bottles as a preservative. After tightly closing the bottles, other formalities were completed. According to the case of the prosecution, one sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Mumbai for test under intimation to Local Health Authority, at Mumbai. The remaining two parcels were subsequently sent to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst submitted a report referring that the sample was found to be adulterated. 4. The learned Magistrate has passed an order ((-3-)) of acquittal on the ground that there was non compliance with the provisions of sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub section 1 of section 11 of the said Act inasmuch as intimation of the sample being forwarded to the Public Analyst was not directly sent to the Local Health Authority. 5. The learned APp appearing for the applicant submitted that substantial compliance was made by the prosecution with the requirements of the said Act as well as Rules framed under the said Act. Her submission is that the fact that the sample was adulterated has been duly proved by the opinion of the public analyst and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed an error by passing an order of acquittal. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. Under sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub section 1 of section 11 of the said Act all the three samples were required to sent for analysis to Public Analyst under an intimation to the Local Health Authority. There is no dispute that the requirement of sending such intimation to the Local Health Authority has been held to be mandatory by this ((-4-)) Court. 7. On this aspect it will be necessary to refer to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW-1 is Ravindra who was working as Clerk in the office of Local Health Authority. In the cross examination he categorically admitted that he had not received intimation as contemplated by sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub section 1 of section 11 of the said Act. The learned Judge has referred to the evidence of PW-3 Mr.Tamboli who was Food Inspector. He categorically admitted that he had not given independent and separate intimation to the Local Health Authority as required by the statute. 8. As the said requirement has been consistently held to be mandatory by this Court, it is difficult to find fault with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the guilt of the accused has not been established. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ((-5-)) (A.S.OKA, J.) ((-6-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra Appellant versus Navnitbhai K. Rayathatta & anr. Respondents Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for the appellant. Mr.Anwar Landge i/by Amin H. Solkar for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th March 2009 JUDGEMENT : For the reasons separately recorded, the appeal is dismissed. (A.S.Oka, J.)