Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Kudal, in Regular Criminal Case No. 73 of 1989, whereby the accused Ramesh Shankar Mathakar was acquitted of offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case was that on 24 July 1987 at about 9 a.m., the Food Inspector visited the accused's shop and purchased 450 grams of Dhaniya (coriander). A receipt was obtained and a notice under Section 14A of the Act was issued to disclose the source of purchase. The Dhaniya was divided into three equal parts, kept in polythene bags, closed, and sealed. Sanction was obtained from the competent authority, and after receiving the Public Analyst's report, a complaint was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court acquitted the accused, observing discrepancies in the evidence of Food Inspectors Hegale and Shintre regarding the procedure followed for sampling and sealing, and also noted that the panch witness Giridhar Kalsekar's signature was not obtained on the samples. The High Court, perusing the evidence, found that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the discrepancies raised reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - State appeal - Scope of interference - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 2) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling procedure - Discrepancy in evidence - Where the evidence of Food Inspectors regarding the procedure of sampling and sealing is contradictory, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Para 2) C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Panch witness - Signature on samples - Failure to obtain panch signature on the sample containers raises doubt about the integrity of the sample and vitiates the prosecution case. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was justified given the procedural discrepancies in sampling and sealing.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld due to procedural irregularities
- discrepancy in evidence of food inspectors
- failure to obtain panch signature on samples
