M B RISALDAR Vs. DEVIRAM CHHITAMAL
LAWS(GJH)-1983-6-7
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 23,1983

M.B.RISALDAR Appellant
VERSUS
DEVIRAM CHHITAMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.B.SHAH - (1.) The Food Inspector Baroda Municipal Corporation has preferred this appeal Against the judgment and order dated 28/02/1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baroda wherein he set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality) Baroda in Criminal Case No. 4823 of 1977.
(2.) The Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality) Baroda has convicted respondent No. 1 under sec. 7(1) and sec. 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by judgment and order dated 26 for selling adulterated curd on 20/06/1977 to the present appellant. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the curd was adulterated and as he sold the curd to the present appellant he convicted respondent No. 1. Against the said judgment and order respondent No. 1 had preferred the abovesaid Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1978 wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the said order of conviction on two grounds. He came to the conclusion that as the appellant was preparing Lachhi (butter-milk) from the said curd the curd was stored only for preparation of Lachhi and therefore it cannot be said that the accused was selling curd. He also held that Rule 16(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was not complied with because the Local Health Authority had not placed the code number and serial number on the paper slip and the said code number and serial number were written by the Food Inspector. It is an admitted fact that the said paper slip contains the signature of the Local Health Authority as required by Rule 16(c) of the aforesaid Rules.
(3.) The said judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was challenged on the ground that the learned Appellate Judge has not at all appreciated the evidence of Food Inspector Mr. G. A. Parikh. It was pointed out to us that the Food Inspector in his deposition has specifically stated that he went to the shop of respondent No. 1 and he purchased curd from respondent No. 1. It has been specifically deposed by him that on the said shop there is a board which inter alia mentions that in the said shop milk and curd are sold. He also deposed that respondent No. 1 had informed him that he was selling curd and also preparing Lachhi from the said curd. He also deposed that for purchase of the said curd he paid Rs. 1-80 Ps. to respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 1 was selling curd at Rs. 3.00 per Kilogram. In cross- examination of this witness it was suggested to him that he was not having any other evidence to show that curd was kept there for sale. In his further cross-examination he has stated that he took curd by small bowl which was kept there for selling curd. In paragraph 19 of his deposition it was suggested that the accused was not selling curd but was only preparing Lachhi and that suggestion was denied by him.;


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