Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 114 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Saibaba Toddy Co.

2009-01-23

V.R.KINGAONKAR

body2009
JUDGMENT:- Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Parbhani, in a criminal case bearing R.C.C. No.489 of 1992 whereby respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under sections 7(1). 2(ia)(a) read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) and section 17, section 7(1), 2(ia), (m) read with section 16(1)(a(ii) and section 17 along with section 7(i). section 2(ia)(h) read with section 16(1-A)(i) and section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. 2. Indisputably, the complainant - Food Inspector Shri. Sudhakar Patil was duly appointed to work as Food Inspector for local area of Parbhani district. The Chief Officer of Municipal Council. Parbhani was appointed as local health authority vide Government Notification published in the Government Gazette on 15th April. 1983. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is a partnership proprietary concern of which the respondent No.2 is the Managing Partner. The Respondent No.3 is servant of the respondent No.1. It is undisputed that the respondents deal in business of collecting and vending "Toddy". The respondent No.1 is duly licensed Toddy Shop situated in ward No.7 at Parbhani. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 29th January. 1992, the Food Inspector - Sudhakar Patil alongwith panch Yithalrao Shinde visited the premises of the respondent No.1 at about 3 p.m. The respondent No.3 was present at the shop. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the respondent No.3. His inspection of the shop revealed that there were 20 moulded plastic crates containing 240 bottles of Toddy meant for sale. The Toddy bottles did not bear any label nor they were corked. The respondent No.3 informed the Food Inspector that the Toddy was filled in the bottles from the same barrel in that morning at about 9 a.m. The Food Inspector informed the respondent No.3 of his intention to purchase samples of the Toddy for the purpose of analysis. He served a notice under Section 14-A. calling upon the respondent No.3 to furnish information as regards purchase bill of the Toddy. The respondent No.3 furnished information that the Toddy was extracted from trees of "Tad" in the same morning and was brought to the shop for sale. There was no purchase bill of the Toddy in the shop. The Food Inspector emptied three (3) Toddy bottles in one empty. dry and clean utensil. The respondent No.3 furnished information that the Toddy was extracted from trees of "Tad" in the same morning and was brought to the shop for sale. There was no purchase bill of the Toddy in the shop. The Food Inspector emptied three (3) Toddy bottles in one empty. dry and clean utensil. He thereafter, measured 15 m/s. Toddy which was poured in another dry, clean and empty utensil. He purchased the 15 mls. Toddy from the respondent NO.3 on payment of Rs.10/- being price thereof as per the market rate. The respondent No.3 issued a receipt in respect of sale of the Toddy. The Food Inspector served a notice on the respondent No.3 in Form-VI and under Ru1e-12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, "PFA Rules"). He again measured 500 m/s.. Toddy from the purchased stock of 1500 m/s. each and filled the same in three (3) empty, clean and dry bottles. In each of the sample bottle, he added half gram (0.5 mg.) copper sulphate as preservative. Thereafter, each of the sample bottle was tightly corked. The mouths of the bottles were affixed with "laklt" seals. The bottles were affixed with labels signed by the Food Inspector, panch and the respondent No.3. The sample bottles were thereafter separately wrapped in thick papers which were duly pasted with gum as required under the Rules. The samples were horizontally and vertically tied by means of thick thread of twine. They were each affixed with "lakh" seals at four (4) places, on the bow, bottom, upper and other side. Then the sample bottles were signed by the Food Inspector and the panch as well as the respondent No.3. 4. The Food Inspector seized remaining stock of the Toddy after service of notice under section 10(4) on the respondent No.3. He prepared a panchanama. He thereafter, returned to the office. He prepared five (5) copies of Form No. VII. He sent one (I) of the sealed sample bottle and copy of Form No. VII to the Public Analyst, On the same day. he separately sent specimen seal and another copy for Form No.VII with a separate letter to the Public Analyst. The remaining two (2) sample bottles and two (2) duly filled in Forms No. VII along with a forwarding letter were sent to the local health authority. The report of Public Analyst was received by him on 06-041992. he separately sent specimen seal and another copy for Form No.VII with a separate letter to the Public Analyst. The remaining two (2) sample bottles and two (2) duly filled in Forms No. VII along with a forwarding letter were sent to the local health authority. The report of Public Analyst was received by him on 06-041992. The report showed that the sample of Toddy contained less percentage of alcohol than prescribed standard. percentage of total acid and volatile acid was more than the permissible limit, and chloral hydrate was present. The sample of the Toddy was, therefore, adulterated as per the report of the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector submitted the relevant documents and his report to the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad with a request to accord consent for the prosecution of the respondents. The competent authority accorded consent/sanction to prosecute the respondents vide consent letter No.l01/92-93/P-13/l201/l, dated 29th September, 1992. Consequently, the Food Inspector instituted the criminal case through his complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. 5. A charge (Exh-66) was framed during the trial. The respondents denied truth into the charge. They did not adopted any specific defence as such. Their defence was one of simple denial. The prosecution examined in all four (4) witnesses in support of its case. On merits, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the Food Inspector purchased 1500 m/s. of Toddy from the respondents in the relevant noon. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate repelled the contention that Rule 16(B) of the PFA Rules was not properly followed while packing of the sample bottles. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also held that there was no infraction of Rule 17 of the PFA Rules though such an argument was advanced. The main ground on which the respondents were acquitted was that the Food Inspector did not depose that the Toddy was stirred while collecting the samples in three (3) bottles. The sample was thus not representative of the Toddy stored for the purpose of sale. The next ground for acquittal was that the date of analysis by the Public Analyst was not shown in the report (Exh-45). The last ground for the acquittal was that the report of the Public Analyst did not show that the sample of Toddy was injurious to health. The next ground for acquittal was that the date of analysis by the Public Analyst was not shown in the report (Exh-45). The last ground for the acquittal was that the report of the Public Analyst did not show that the sample of Toddy was injurious to health. On these three (3) grounds, the impugned judgment of acquittal has been rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. Mr. Dighe, learned A.P.P. would submit that the report of the Public Analyst duly indicated the opinion that the sample was adulterated. He would submit that there was no need to specify that it was injurious to health. He contended that the Food Inspector carefully collected the sample and filled the same in the three (3) empty, clean and dry sample bottles after measuring 1500 m/s. from the stock which was collected from the three (3) bottles meant for sale and, hence, the absence of stirring could not be a ground for the acquittal. He argued that the omission to indicate date of analysis is not fatal, particularly when the Public Analyst PW-4 Prakash Kulkarni was examined. He also pointed out that when the copper sulphate was added as preservative, then the sample could not be regarded as adulterated due to any extraneous reasons when it was analysed within a reasonable period of one (I) month and four (4) days. He would submit that the grounds of acquittal are inadequate. He urged, therefore, to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict the respondents. Per contra, Mr. Ganesh Gadhe, learned advocate holding for Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate representing the respondent Nos.1 and 2, strenuously argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is quite legal and proper. He contended that after such a long drawn period, interference in the order of acquittal is uncalled for. He would submit that the sample was not representative of the stock of Toddy because the Food Inspector did not stir the same after pouring of Toddy in the utensil. He placed reliance on "Suresh Raghunath Gupte Vs. Taraknath Rajnarayan Mishra & Ors., 2002 Cri.L.J, 1276: [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1996]". He also invited my attention to "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramjilal Prabhudayal Agrawal & Anr., 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2616" and "Manohar Lal Vs. The State, 1989 Cri.L.J. 570". The respondent No.3 remained absent though was duly served. 7. He placed reliance on "Suresh Raghunath Gupte Vs. Taraknath Rajnarayan Mishra & Ors., 2002 Cri.L.J, 1276: [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1996]". He also invited my attention to "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramjilal Prabhudayal Agrawal & Anr., 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2616" and "Manohar Lal Vs. The State, 1989 Cri.L.J. 570". The respondent No.3 remained absent though was duly served. 7. Crucial points to be determined are as follows: (i) Whether it is proved that the respondents stored adulterated "Toddy" for the purpose of sale on 29th January, 1992 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed patent error while acquitting them of the charge on technical grounds which are inadequate, improper and have no bearing on merits of the matter? 8. Before I embark upon scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it may be stated that the respondent No.2 admitted in clear terms that he is the Managing Partner of the respondent No.1, which is a Partnership Firm, and the respondent No.3 is the servant thereof. The respondent No.3 did not dispute visit of the Food Inspector to the shop. He admitted, unequivocally, that on 29th January, 1992, Food Inspector - Sudhakar Patil visited the shop along with the panch witness. He also admitted the fact that he was present in the shop as servant of the respondent No.1. He did not state that the sample of Toddy was collected by the Food Inspector without observing proper procedure. 9. Now, I shall proceed to scrutinize the prosecution evidence in reverse order. The version of P.W.4 Prakash Kulkarni purports to show that he received sealed sample bottle of Toddy on 01-02-1992. He was then Public Analyst. He got the sample analysed through his Assistant. He corroborated the report dated 06-03- I 992 (Exh-44). He stated that he prepared four (4) copies of the report and sent the same to the local health authority by registered post. He was unable to say exact, method of analysis of the sample. His version reveals that the result of analysis may differ in case of fresh Toddy and in case of stored Toddy. However, he added that if a preservative like copper sulphate is added, then there will be no such difference. He was unable to disclose the date of analysis. His version purports to show that after adding preservative, the condition of the fluid i.e. Toddy would be saved approximately for one (I) year. However, he added that if a preservative like copper sulphate is added, then there will be no such difference. He was unable to disclose the date of analysis. His version purports to show that after adding preservative, the condition of the fluid i.e. Toddy would be saved approximately for one (I) year. According to him, his Assistant Mr. Pathak analysed the sample. 10. The version of PW -3 Shri. Shashikant Bharne purports to show that he was attached to Municipal Council, Parbhani as Chief Officer in the relevant period. While working as local health authority, he had received two (2) sample packets and a forwarding letter from the Food Inspector on 30th January, 1992. He corroborated the receipts (Exh-37 and Exh-39). On 10th March, 1992, he received the four (4) copies of the report of the Public Analyst. He sent one (1) of the copies of report to the Assistant Commissioner of Food and Drugs Department. He issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to the respondents. His version practically remained unchallenged during the cross-examination. He has no business to speak lie. 11. The version of PW -2 Vithal purports to show that he attended the panchanama prepared by the Food Inspector. His version purports to show that the Food Inspector seized bottles filled with Toddy and drew the panchanama. He did not support case of the prosecution in respect of seizure of other bottles. He states that the bottles were sealed in his presence. He admitted his signature on the panchanama. His version is of no much avail to either side. 12. Coming to the version of P.W-1 Sudhakar Patil (Food Inspector), it may be gathered that he visited the Toddy shop of the respondents on 29th January. 1992 at about 3 p.m. There is no dispute about the fact that he was duly appointed as Food Inspector and was nominated to work as such in Parbhani division. He produced a xerox copy of the Government Gazette dated 28th November, 1984 (Exh-22) in this behalf. His version purports to show that during his visit to the Toddy shop, the panch-witness accompanied him. When they visited the shop of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 was present in the premises. His inquiry with the respondent No.3 revealed that the respondent No.2 was Managing Partner of the shop. His version purports to show that during his visit to the Toddy shop, the panch-witness accompanied him. When they visited the shop of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 was present in the premises. His inquiry with the respondent No.3 revealed that the respondent No.2 was Managing Partner of the shop. He inspected the licence and other documents at the shop. The respondent No.3 informed further that he was servant of the shop. 13. The version of Food Inspector - Sudhakar Patil further shows that there were 20 crates, each containing 12 bottles of Toddy, stored in the shop. Each bottle contained 650 m/s. of Toddy. His version further purports to show that the bottles were not corked and were without labels. On inquiry, he came to know that the bottles were filled up in the same morning from one canister. He served a notice under section 14 on the respondent No.3 and inquired about name of purchaser and cash memo. The respondent No.3 told him that the Toddy was extracted from trees of "Tad" by the respondent No.2 and there was no purchase receipt because the stock was not purchased from anyone else. The Food Inspector then purchased 1500 m/s. of Toddy against payment of Rs.10/- vide receipt (Exh-25). There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No.3 issued the receipt in respect of sale of the Toddy. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the version of Food Inspector unambiguously reveals that he collected 1500 m/s. of Toddy from three (3) bottles in one (I) clean, empty and dry utensil. He used clean, dry and empty measurement flask for the purpose of collecting the Toddy in the clean utensil. In this context, there is no cross-examination directed against him. There is no suggestion to him that the utensil was not clean, dry and empty at the time of collecting the Toddy from the three (3) bottles of the shop. Nor it is suggested to him that the three (3) sample bottles used for collecting of the samples were not clean, dry and empty before use thereof. 15. The version of the Food Inspector goes to show that he added copper sulphate as preservative in each of the sample bottle, tightly corked the three (3) sample bottles and affixed seals on the same. 15. The version of the Food Inspector goes to show that he added copper sulphate as preservative in each of the sample bottle, tightly corked the three (3) sample bottles and affixed seals on the same. He further affixed labels of his signature and that of the panch on each of the sample bottle. He narrated as to how the sample bottles were wrapped in papers and ends thereof were pasted with gum. He thereafter pasted slips bearing signature of the local health authority and code number, around each of the sample bottle. Thereafter, they were horizontally and vertically fastened by means of thread. He narrated further as to how the seals were affixed. His version purports to show the manner in which he forwarded one of the sample bottles along with the specimen seal and forwarding letter to the office of the Public Analyst. He sent the remaining two (2) sample bottles and the copies of the Form No.7 to the local health authority along with a forwarding letter (Exh-36). He thus took necessary care while forwarding sample bottle to the office of the Public Analyst. 16. There is presumption about official acts under section 14(e) of the Evidence Act. The version of the Food Inspector purports to show that he had undertaken training of food inspection and sampling work. He was duly experienced Food Inspector at the relevant time. He had not business to commit any mischief or error while collecting the sample of Toddy at shop of the respondents. There was no animosity between him and the respondent No.2. In fact, they did not know each other prior to the incident. 17. The version of the Food Inspector stands partly corroborated since PW-2 Vithal (panch) admits that both of them visited the Toddy shop of the respondents. The panch witness also corroborates the fact that the Food Inspector prepared a panchanama in his presence vide Exh-31. His version also shows that the sample bottles were sealed in his presence. The version of Food Inspector may be accepted if it is found reliable. There is no rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector is required to be corroborated. His version also shows that the sample bottles were sealed in his presence. The version of Food Inspector may be accepted if it is found reliable. There is no rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector is required to be corroborated. The Apex Court in ''Babulal Hargovindas V s. State of Gujarat" ( AIR 1971 SC 1277 ), held that it is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. In the present case, the version of PW Sudhakar Patil- Food Inspector is duly corroborated by the memorandum panchanama (Exh-31) and other relevant documents. Nothing of much importance could be gathered from his cross-examination. 18. The Trial Court held that the sample was not representative of the whole bulk. The Trial Court relied upon certain observations in "Ramcharan Dwarkadas Gupta V s. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (1983 Cri.L.J. 1251). The learned advocate for the respondents also invited my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in "Suresh Raghunath Gupta Vs. Taraknat. Rajnarayan Mishra and others" (2002 Cri.L.J. 1276: [2001 ALL. MR (Cri) 1996). The Division Bench held that there is non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18 of the PFA Rules, 1955. It was further observed that the Food Inspector had not stated that before taking the sample, he had stirred the milk. The Division Bench further observed that the stirring of milk, before taking sample, is absolutely necessary and not doing so, would vitiate the conviction. 19. Clinching question is whether the stirring of the Toddy was very much essential for the purpose of obtaining representative sample of the stock. The Rules 17 and 18 do not mandate stirring of such food article. It is only in view of the expression used in Section 2(xiv) of the PFA Act that the expression "sample" does imply sample of any article of food taken under the provisions of the Act or of the Rules framed there under. It is for this reason that the sample ought to be representative of the stock of the food article. The case of sale of the food article to the Food Inspector must be distinguished from the case where the Food Inspector compulsorily takes a sample of food article manufactured for sale or stored by the accused. It is for this reason that the sample ought to be representative of the stock of the food article. The case of sale of the food article to the Food Inspector must be distinguished from the case where the Food Inspector compulsorily takes a sample of food article manufactured for sale or stored by the accused. In case of compulsory sale, the Food Inspector is required to take due care to see that the sample is representative of the available stock. However, where the sale at counter is made, the vendor is required to take all necessary precautions to ensure that the quantity of the food articles sold to the Food Inspector would be representative of the whole stock available with him. The question whether the sample is a representative sample of the whole stock or it is not so, will depend upon fact situation of each case, In the present case, the Food Inspector got poured the Toddy contained in three (3) bottles which were meant for sale from amongst 240 such bottles. The contents of all the three (3) bottles were poured in one (I) dry, clean and empty utensil. Obviously, while pouring the contents together, there was appropriate mixing of the Toddy contained in the said three (3) bottles. The Food Inspector took out 1500 m/s. out of the said 1950 m/s. and poured the same in separate utensil. 20. In his cross-examination, the Food Inspector initially blurted out that he did not stir the Toddy, but in the next breath, he stated that the Toddy was stirred. As a matter of fact, he had not collected the sample of Toddy from a barrel/container and. Therefore, there was no requirement of stirring of the Toddy. This is a case in which the three (3) bottles themselves were meant for sale and could represent the Toddy from the stock available in the shop. The Food Inspector purchased the Toddy which itself was a representative of the stock meant for sale. Obviously, it cannot be said that there was infringement of Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the PF A Rules. In fact, Rule 17 deals with manner of dispatching the containers of samples and Rule 18 deals with sending of memorandum and impression of seal separately. Obviously, it cannot be said that there was infringement of Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the PF A Rules. In fact, Rule 17 deals with manner of dispatching the containers of samples and Rule 18 deals with sending of memorandum and impression of seal separately. The version of the Food Inspector purports to show that the had sent the forwarding letter and specimen impression of seal used to seal the packet, separately. The sample bottle as well as specimen seal and forwarding letter were separately sent to the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector duly complied with Rules 17 and 18 of the PF A Rules. 21. The Trial Court clearly held that there was no infraction of Rules 17 and 18. Still, however, the Trial Court came to conclusion that the consent under Section 20 of the PFA Act was invalid. The version of PW Sudhakar Patil - Food Inspector purports to show that he had sent the report along with the relevant documents to the Joint Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration. His version reveals that he received consent (sanction) order (Exh-59). In fact, nothing was put to him during course of the cross-examination about validity of the sanction. On perusal of the consent letter (Exh59), it may be gathered that the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration duly considered the report of the Public Analyst and other relevant documents before exercising powers under section 20(1) of the PF A Act. The cross-examination of PW Sudhakar Patil Food Inspector does not show any whisper about the challenge to the validity of the consent order (Exh-59). Needless to say that there was no foundation made out in support of the argument that the consent order was invalid. It is well settled that the consenting authority need not be examined if the consent order itself is indicative of application of mind to the report and relevant papers. In fact, there is distinction between "written consent" and "sanction". The term "written consent" implies mere concurrence or agreement, whereas the term "sanction" confers authority on the person in whose favour it is granted. The consideration applicable in case of "sanction" would not be applicable to a case wherein the "Written consent" is required. In "State of Maharashtra Vs. Janardhan" 1978(1) FAC 62, such a view is taken. The term "written consent" implies mere concurrence or agreement, whereas the term "sanction" confers authority on the person in whose favour it is granted. The consideration applicable in case of "sanction" would not be applicable to a case wherein the "Written consent" is required. In "State of Maharashtra Vs. Janardhan" 1978(1) FAC 62, such a view is taken. Therefore, non-examination of the Joint Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration could not vitiate the trial. The view taken by the Trial Court in this behalf is patently incorrect. 22. The Trial Court further expressed doubts about correctness of the report of the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh-45) would show that the sample was analysed after receipt of the forwarding letter and the sealed sample bottle on 1st day of February, 1992. The report is dated 06-031992. So, it is manifest that the analysis was done somewhere between 1st February, 1992 till 05-03-1992. The Toddy samples were drawn on 29-01-1992. Obviously, the analysis was done within 45 days of the purchase of the Toddy by the Food Inspector. The Trial Court gave much importance to the fact that the report of the Public Analyst does not show date of the receipt of the sample and date of the analysis. So, it was held to be a doubtful report. I find it difficult to go along the reasoning of the Trial Court. The cross-examination ofPW4 Prakash Kulkarni does not show that the report was drawn after 40 days of collecting the sample. The purport of Rule 7(3) of the PFA Rules is to ensure that the Public Analyst would take early action for purpose of analysing the food article. An objection was raised by the learned advocate for the respondents on the ground that PW Prakash Kulkarni himself did not carry out the work of analysis and, therefore, it was contended that the report is unacceptable. I do not agree. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule (7) would make it amply clear that the Public Analyst need not himself carry out the analysis. Sub-Rule (2) reads as follows: "(2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of article of food as may be sent to him by Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act." 23. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule (7) would make it amply clear that the Public Analyst need not himself carry out the analysis. Sub-Rule (2) reads as follows: "(2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of article of food as may be sent to him by Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act." 23. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 requires the Public Analyst to send the report within 40 days of the receipt of sample for analysis. The report was sent by PW -4 Prakash Kulkarni on 07-03-1992. He received the sample on 0102-1992. It is manifest, therefore, that within 40 days, he sent the report to the local healthy authority. His version reveals that the sample was analysed by his assistant. It is permissible if he had caused the sample to be analysed from the staff member under his supervision. His version reveals that the s'ill1ple contained copper sulphate as preservative. It has come on record that such a sample would remain fit for analysis for a period of about one (I) year. The samples were thus not rendered unfit for the purpose of analysis. Nor the report was sent after the period of 40 days from date of receipt of the samples. The Trial Court committed patent error, therefore, while holding that Rule 7(3) of the PF A Rules was breached. The report of the Public Analyst could not be brushed aside on basis of flimsy doubt expressed by the Trial Court. 24. The Trial Court further observed that the report (Exh-45) does not show that the sample of Toddy was injurious to health and, hence, it fell outside the pale of the PFA Act. The Apex Court in "Tulsiram V s. State of Madhya Pradesh" ( AIR 1985 SC 299 ). held, that the food sample may not be "injurious to health", yet, due to presence of extraneous material. misbranding, mixing or for other reason may be regarded as adulterated one. The Toddy sample did not conform to the standards. The Toddy. as per standard prescribed vide entry No.A.29.01 of the Appendix-B below Rule-5 of the PF A Rules, shall be in accordance with the standards and contents as indicated in clauses (a) to (c). misbranding, mixing or for other reason may be regarded as adulterated one. The Toddy sample did not conform to the standards. The Toddy. as per standard prescribed vide entry No.A.29.01 of the Appendix-B below Rule-5 of the PF A Rules, shall be in accordance with the standards and contents as indicated in clauses (a) to (c). It shall conform to the following standards: (a) Alcoholic content Not less than 5 per cent (v/v) (b) Total acid as tartaric acid Not more than 400 grams. (expressed in terms of 100 litres of absolute alcohol) (c) Volatile acid as Not more than acetic acid 100 grams. (expressed in terms of 100 litres of absolute alcohol) In the case in hand, the alcoholic contents was found to be less than 5 per cent. Only 0.2 per cent of the alcohol was found in the sample of the Toddy. The volatile acid was found to be more than the prescribed limit. The sample also contained chloral hydrate. The colour of the sample was bluish. A plain reading of description contained under the entry A.29.0l shows that the Toddy must be free from chloral hydrate, paraldehyde, sedative, tranquilizer and artificial sweetener. Considered from this stand point of view, it is proved beyond reasonable realm of doubt that the sample of Toddy was not in keeping with standards prescribed vide entry No.A.29.01. The Trial Court committed error while giving benefit of doubt to the respondents. The Trial Court seems to have overlooked parameters of granting benefit of "reasonable doubt". A mere doubt or suspicion cannot be a ground to render acquittal. The doubt must be reasonable, pragmatic and based on sufficient material. It may be mentioned that the learned advocate appearing for the respondents also referred to "Manohar Lal Vs. The State 1989 Cri.L.J. 570. A Single Bench of Delhi High Court held that when the sanction order did not specify date of lifting of sample and there was no proof regarding consent of Director of the Health Services, there was noncompliance of section 20(1). With due respects, I find it difficult to apply the ratio of the said authority to the fact situation of the present case. It is quite distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the consent order (Exh-59) reveals that the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration had received report of the Public Analyst and other documents on 06-03-1992. With due respects, I find it difficult to apply the ratio of the said authority to the fact situation of the present case. It is quite distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the consent order (Exh-59) reveals that the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration had received report of the Public Analyst and other documents on 06-03-1992. The consent order shows the date of lifting the sample as 29-01-1992 from the premises of the respondents. Hence, there is no deficiency in the consent order. The learned advocate for the respondents also referred to "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramjilal Prabhudayal Agrawal and Another" 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2616. It was a case of acquittal of the accused under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a)(m) punishable under section 16 of the PF A Act. The learned Single Judge held that the delay in the trial necessitated non-interference in the acquittal. This case law does not lay down any ratio as such. 25. The learned advocate for the respondents would submit that the thickness of the paper was not stated by the Food Inspector. It hardly shows infraction of Rule 16. In "State of Maharashtra Vs. Popat Panachand Shah, 2004 Cri.L.J. 2780: [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1022], this Court held that merely because the sample was not packed and sealed in a bottle, or it was not corked, it would not mean that there has been infraction of Rule 16 of the PFA Rules. This Court also held that grant of consent under section 20 of the PFA Act, no doubt, requires application of mind. Still, however, the rigours of requirement of a valid sanction under the other enactments cannot be invoked in such a case. 26. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that Toddy is generally consumed by members of the lower strata of the Society. The adulteration in the Toddy affects the poor persons including labours and other economically weaker sections. The Toddy vendors are tempted to earn easy money by diluting the extracted Toddy with water. It causes reduction in the percentage of the alcohol. In other words, by adding water or like fluid, the vendor deceives the gullible customers. In this view of the matter, inspite of the delay caused in hearing of the appeal, I am of the opinion that interference in the judgment of acquittal is called for. It causes reduction in the percentage of the alcohol. In other words, by adding water or like fluid, the vendor deceives the gullible customers. In this view of the matter, inspite of the delay caused in hearing of the appeal, I am of the opinion that interference in the judgment of acquittal is called for. In my opinion, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in as much as the acquittal is rendered on the grounds which are totally improper and incorrect. 27. For the reasons afore stated, I am inclined to hold that the offence punishable under sections 7(1). 2(ia), (a) read with section 16(1)(a) and (ii) and sections 7(i), 2(ia)(m) read with section 16(1)(ai) of the PFA Act, is duly proved against the respondents Nos.1 to 3. The respondents are liable to be punished for the same. In my opinion, cumulative sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- against the respondent No.1 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would suffice the purpose. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside. Instead, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7(1), 2(ia), (a) read with section 16(1)(a) and (ii) and sections 7(i), 2(ia)(m) read with section 16(1)(ai) of the PFA Act. The respondent No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent No.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for term of one (I) year each and to pay fine ofRs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months. The respondent No.3 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months. They shall surrender to the bail immediately. The period of detention undergone by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, if any, shall be set-off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The property articles be destroyed. Appeal allowed.