Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Food Inspector, filed an appeal against the acquittal of Deepak Shankarrao Shirbhate, proprietor of M/s. Mahakali Tel Bhandar, Amravati, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 21.8.2001 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993. The respondent was charged with selling adulterated linseed oil under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(i) and Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On 29.9.1992, the Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop and collected samples of groundnut oil and linseed oil. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the linseed oil sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the PFA Rules, 1955. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charge. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence of the Food Inspector (PW 1) and noted that the panchanama did not mention the collection of the linseed oil sample. The court held that the prosecution could not establish that the linseed oil sample was taken from the respondent's shop, which was a fatal flaw. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sample Collection - Proof of Possession - Sections 7(i), 16(1)(a)(ii), 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and PFA Rules, 1955 - The prosecution failed to prove that the linseed oil sample was collected from the respondent's shop as the panchanama did not mention collection of linseed oil sample - Held that the acquittal was proper as the essential ingredient of possession was not established (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the linseed oil sample was collected from the respondent's shop and that the respondent was guilty of selling adulterated linseed oil.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 21.8.2001 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld due to lack of evidence linking sample to accused
- burden of proof on prosecution
- strict compliance with procedure in food adulteration cases
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 158
Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2002
Shri Neeraj Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Appellant; Shri J.T. Gilda, Advocate for the Respondent
State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Food & Drugs Administrative Department, Amravati
Deepak Shankarrao Shirbhate, Proprietor of M/s. Mahakali Tel Bhandar, Itwara Bazar, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
State appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case
Remedy Sought
The State sought conviction of the respondent for selling adulterated linseed oil
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the charge
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati acquitted the respondent on 21.8.2001 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved that the linseed oil sample was collected from the respondent's shop?
Whether the acquittal was proper given the lack of evidence in the panchanama?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the Public Analyst report showing adulteration.
Respondent argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the sample was taken from his shop as the panchanama did not mention linseed oil sample collection.
Ratio Decidendi
In a food adulteration case, the prosecution must prove that the sample was collected from the accused's possession. If the panchanama does not mention the collection of the specific sample, the essential ingredient of possession is not established, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the evidence of Food Inspector, PW 1 Sukumar Annu Choudhary that he had not mentioned anything in the panchanama about collecting the sample of linseed oil from the shop of the respondent.
In the circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that the prosecution could not prove the charge against the respondent and acquitting him.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent in 1993 (Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati acquitted the respondent on 21.8.2001. The State appealed to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2002, which was dismissed on 4.9.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 2(ia)(a)(m)
- PFA Rules, 1955:
