Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 379 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Rameshwar Dayal

2007-03-29

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena in Criminal Case No. 904/98, by which the respondent has been acquitted against the charge under section 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) of the Food Adulteration Act. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 14.9.1998, Food Inspector, R.S. Chauhan (PW 1) took the sample of 375 gms. of mustard oil from the respondent and gave him Rs. 18/- as purchase price. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed on the spot. From which, one part sent to the Public Analyst, Bhopal, for its report and the remaining parts were deposited in the office of the Dy. Director, Food, Morena. The report received from the public analyst shows that oil was adulterated. 3. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court and after trial the Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that sample was not made homogeneous and it was not representative sample. Secondly, the exact weight is also not proved. It is taken approximately and thirdly the mandatory compliance of notice under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not proved, therefore, acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that it is not necessary that before taking sample mustard oil should be made homogeneous because the process of extracting oil itself makes the content homogeneous. He further submits that in para 1 of the statement of Girraj Dandotiya (PW 2), it is submitted by this witness that notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was served on the respondent by the registered post. The receipt and acknowledgement was filed in the Court record. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that as per documents Ex. D- 1, Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3, oil was seized by the collector and the respondent was the custodian. 6. In the evidence of Food Inspector R.S. Chouhan (PW 1), it is no where stated that while taking the sample for examination, it was made homogeneous. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that as per documents Ex. D- 1, Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3, oil was seized by the collector and the respondent was the custodian. 6. In the evidence of Food Inspector R.S. Chouhan (PW 1), it is no where stated that while taking the sample for examination, it was made homogeneous. In this regard, he relied on a judgment rendered in CrA No. 456/99 (State of M.P. v. Rajendra Prasad), passed by this Court and on Dharam Chandra v. Food Inspector and another reported in 1985 FA] 455 M.P. and Satyanarayan Gupta, Food Inspector v. Mohan Lal reported in 1999 (1) MPWN 29 = 1999 FAJ 23 MP and some other rulings have also been put forth by the counsel which are on the same point. 7. The trial Court, in para 10, of the judgment has given clear finding that the sample was not made homogeneous before taking it as sample for its analysis by the public analyst. Therefore, after perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clear that the sample was not made homogeneous and it was not a representative sample as laid down in the above citations. 8. Second point is that the compliance of mandatory provision of notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was also not proved. It is submitted by the counsel that Rules 17 and 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with because Girraj Dandotiya (PW 2) only states that notice was sent through registered post but in the record of the trial Court only postal receipt Ex. P-16 was attached in the record but no copy of the notice under section 13 (2) was produced and exhibited by the prosecution. Similarly the registered A.D. was also not exhibited, therefore, compliance of mandatory provision was not proved by the prosecution. In this regard, he relied on Ramesh v. State of M.P. reported in 2004 FA] 171 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratanlal reported in 1984 CCrJ 169 (N 81). Similarly, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively the exact weight of the sample. In this regard, he relied on Ramesh v. State of M.P. reported in 2004 FA] 171 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratanlal reported in 1984 CCrJ 169 (N 81). Similarly, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively the exact weight of the sample. He raised some other grounds in which I do not want to go in deep because it is a State appeal and I will meet out only those grounds which have been challenged by the State in the memo of appeal or in the arguments or referred during the course of arguments. 9. In view of the above discussion, it appears that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on cogent reasons and the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of taking sample it was made homogeneous and further it is not proved that the mandatory provision of section 13 (2) was complied by the prosecution. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.