Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Bharat Anant Shinde. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999
Party Name:The State of Maharashtra Vs Bharat Anant Shinde
Counsel:For Appellant: Deepak Thakare, APP
Judges:P.N. Deshmukh, J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 378, 385; Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act,1954 - Sections 13(2), 14, 16, 2(ia) (h), 2(ia) (m), 7(1)
Judgement Date:May 08, 2017
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

  1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against Judgment dated 12th February 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahiwadi in Regular Criminal Case No. 130 of 1996, thereby acquitting the Respondent of the offences punishable under Section 2(ia) (h) 2(ia) (m), Rule 47 read with Section 7(1) punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

  2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Mr. B.K. Karyappa, the complainant who is Food Inspector on 2nd February 1996 along with panch witness inspected the shop of accused and purchased ice-candy as a sample for analysing it, after issuing notice to accused in Form No. 6 and under Section 14 of the Act and after melting them filled the liquid in three separates bottles out of which one sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory, Pune along with Form No. 7 on the following day, while remaining two samples along with Form No. 7 were sent to Local Health Laboratory, Satara. The report of Public analyst stated that the food article i.e. ice candies were not conforming to the standards under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as were adulterated. The report of Public analyst was sent to Respondent.

  3. On the basis of report of Public Analyst investigation was carried out and all the necessary documents were collected from the shop of Respondent and were forwarded to the competent authority for according sanction to prosecute the Respondent. On receipt of sanction the complaint came to be lodged and notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food and Drug Administration Act came to be issued to the Respondent.

  4. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence since came to conclusion that there was prima facie substance in the complaint to proceed against the accused explained charges vide Exhibit 50 under Section 2(ia) (h) 2(ia) (m), Rule 47 read with Section 7(1) punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

  5. It is the specific case of the Respondent that he had no space for storing ice candies for sale and he has not sold the ice candy. He had kept the mixture of Soda Lemon as well as carbonated water in the freeze in his shop. The samples were drawn by the complainant inspite of Respondent objected for the same. Thus it is the case of the Respondent that he is falsely implicated by lodging false...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL