M.P.KANADE, J. - (1.) These two criminal appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment which would govern the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 54 of 1978 and 55 of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, also heard both the appeals filed by two different accused against the orders of conviction and sentence arising out of the two judgments of the trial Court and disposed of the same by a common judgment, as the question of law and facts involved in both the appeals was the same.
(2.) These two appeals are filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated October 5, 1978, whereby Criminal Appeals Nos. 54 of 1978 and 55 of 1978 pending before him were disposed of acquitting both the accused charged by the learned Magistrate under sections 2(ia)(h), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(3.) Few facts giving rise to these appeals are that there were food poisoning cases at Sailu. On August 10, 1975, the Police Officer collected some samples of food articles from one Ramlal Malpani, accused in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1979 and one Omprakash Sharma, accused in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1979 under a panchanama and retained them in police custody. It appears that the complainant Food Inspector with his colleagues visited the Police Station on August 10, 1975 and collected samples of Jawar flower and Maize in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1979 and samples of Jawar, Maize and Hulga in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1979. If appears that the accused persons were called at the Police Station and the samples were taken by the Food Inspector in the presence of the panchas after completing the procedure for taking samples of food articles. It further appears that the Food Inspector divided the said samples into three parts, one was given to the accused persons, the other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by him. The complainant received the report from the Public Analyst which is at Exhibit 23. The Public Analyst opined that both samples Nos. HCT/70/75 and HCT/74/75 contained organo-chloro pesticide residue, namely, endrin and the same was unfit for human consumption. It must be stated here that the complainant had not sent the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for further examination as provided by sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The report of the Public Analyst is final and conclusive evidence of facts stated therein. The finality and conclusiveness of the said evidence can only be disturbed by the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. In the present case, such report was not called for by the complainant.;