LAXMAN SITARAM PAI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-2-4
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on February 02,1966

LAXMAN SITARAM PAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF KAENATAKA VS. MANOJ DRUG HOUSE [LAWS(KAR)-1974-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CHHOTEKHAN NANNEKHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1969-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR VS. A G SUVARNA [LAWS(KAR)-1984-8-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.M.Kalagate, J. - (1.)First petitioner Laxman Sitaram Pai is the Manager and Second Petitioner Venkatesh Bhiku Pai is the Proprietor of the hotel known as 'Madhavashram' in house No. 3441, College Road, Belgaum. The two petitioners were the accused in C. C. No. 3752 of 1964 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum City, and the charge against them was that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 1(3 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint was filed against the petitioners by the Belgaum Borough Municipality by its Prosecutor Shri D.S. Sadre.
(2.)P. W. 1 Shri Umar is a Food Inspector of Belgaum Municipality and it is the case of the prosecution that on 8-9-1964 the Food Inspector Mr. Umar went to the tea shop of the accused known as "Madhavashram' to take sample of milk at about 7 a.m., he found two vessels containing 15 seers of milk in one and 10 seers of milk in the other in the kitchen; the Inspector demanded 660 milli-litres of cold milk from accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 sold the same and took 45 paise only as its price; the Food Inspector obtained a receipt for having paid 45 Paise from accused No. 1; he also took in writing from him that the milk purchased by him was buffalo milk; then, in accordance with the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he gave due notice to accused No. 1 stating that he would send the sample of milk to the Public Analyst for analysis; he then divided the sample into three equal parts, took three empty, clean and dry bottles and fllied them with these three parts of the sample; he also added formalin into these bottles and then sealed, labelled and numbered the bottles giving the sample No. 351; the Inspector then sent the second bottle to the Public Analyst, Bangalore for analysis with a memorandum' containing the specimen seal with which the bottles had been sealed; the result of analysis as certified by the Public Analyst showed that the sample sent is adulterated. It is on these facts that the two petitioners were proseeuteted for the offences stated above.
(3.)The two accused in their defence stated that Madhavashram is a tea shop which, sells only tea and coffee and milk is not sold to customers in the shop but is kept only for preparing tea and coffee. They also denied that they received 45 paise from the Food Inspector P. W. 1 as the price of the milk. They contended that it was P. W. 1 himself who placed 45 paise on the table and obtained the receipt from them. Thus, they denied that they have committted the offences with which they have been charged.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.