Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Arvind Shriram Lad. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 71 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. and For Respondents: Santosh S. Jadahvar, Advocate
JudgesS.S. Shinde, J.
IssuePrevention Of Food Adulteration Act,1954 - Sections 14(a), 16, 2(ia) (c), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(c), 2(ia)(m), 2(v), 20, 7, 7(i), 7(v)
Judgement DateMay 08, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)


S.S. Shinde, J.

  1. This Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 2nd September 2002, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon in R.T.C. No. 366 of 1993, by which Respondent - Arvind Shriram Lad came to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia) (c) and 7(v) read with 2(ia)(m) and Rule 44(h) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

  2. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is as under:-

    A) The complainant A.D. Ajansondkar, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Ahmednagar, filed the private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon. He was an authorized officer to file such complaint. The Respondent i.e. original accused was proprietor of a firm M/s. Prashant Provision Stores, situated at Kolpewadi, Tq-Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar and he was doing the business of stocking for sale and selling the food articles. He had valid license to run such business to sale food articles. In the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, there is mention of the premises from which the Respondent was doing his business.

    B) On 31st January, 1992 the complainant along with an independent witness Shri Balnath Kondaji Pagar, resident of Velapur, Tq-Kopargaon, visited the premises of the Respondent accused at about 12.30 p.m., where the accused was present. Complainant disclosed his identity to the accused and made his intention clear that he wants to draw samples of food articles for test and analysis under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules thereunder. The complainant inspected the premises thoroughly and purchased 600 gm. Turmeric (Haldi Powder), which was kept in an open and unlabeled tin containing about 2 Kg. Haldi powder. The complainant paid the amount of purchase of said Turmeric. The complainant gave an intimation in Form No. 6 to the accused for drawing the said samples for test and analysis. The complainant also issued a notice under Section 14(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Respondent was asked to disclose his name, address of the supplier, and receipt was obtained from the accused. The accused replied the said notice. The complainant divided the sample then and there into three equal parts and each part was filled into clean, dry and empty polythene bag, and after sealing of those bags containing Turmeric and after taking proper care...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT