Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 342 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Phulchand Nagar & others

2004-03-16

D.G.DESHPANDE

body2004
JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.G., J.: - Heard A.P.P. for the State-appellant and Advocate for the respondents-accused. 2. This appeal is against the acquittal of the accused under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Respondent No. 2 original accused No. 2 is dead. The appeal against him abated by order dated 16 October, 2003. Accused were painly acquitted for no compliance to certain provisions including Rule 14 and no compliance to section 13(2). So far as Rule 14 is concerned, there is positive evidence of the Food Inspector that the bottles taken by him for sample collection were clean, dry and empty. Nothing was brought on record in the cross-examination to disprove this fact. Therefore, there is no substance in the defence that bottles were not clean, empty and dry. However, admittedly there is no compliance to mandatory requirement of section 13(2) by which Local Health Authority is required to send a copy of the analyst to the accused in a prescribed manner and it has to be proved in Court that the compliance has been there in that regard. 3. In the instant case no witness from Local Health Authority was examined. Only the Food Inspector was examined and he merely produced a copy of the notice sent to him in compliance to requirement of section 13(2). He also did not produce any acknowledgment to the accused about receipt of report under section 13(2). The evidence of the Food Inspector in that regard is as follows: "On 10-9-1985, L.H.A, send copy of public analyst to accused No. 1 by Regd. Post. I am producing the O.C. of the notice addressed to me. It bears signature of Local Health Authority. (Exh. 38)". Apart from this, there is no evidence nor any document showing compliance to section 13(2) requirement. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that there was compliance to section 13(2) and the non-compliance has resulted in failure of justice because the accused could not take the advantage of privileges granted to him. The acquittal on this ground cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. -----