MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SHRIPAT GANESHLAL
LAWS(BOM)-1972-11-6
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on November 23,1972

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
VERSUS
SHRIPAT GANESHLAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Akola, against the acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola of respondent-1 accused Shripat for an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act ).
(2.) THE material facts are not at all in dispute. On March 26, 1968, the accused was found selling Kesari Dal in his shop located in Kothari Bazar, Akola. This sale was effected to C. W. 1 Abdul Karim, who being Sanitary Inspector with the complainant Municipal Council was also for the purpose of the Act, the Food Inspector. He took oath as C. W. 1 and stated that he knew the accused, who deals in sales of grains in Kothari Bazar. The witness had gone to his shop when after disclosing his identity he pointed out to him that he wanted grains for sample from his shop. In the shop Tur Dal and Lakh Dal i. e. , Kesari Dal, were kept for sale. C. W. 1 demanded sample of Lakh Dal as a sample for food. Upon this the accused sold him 750 grams of Dal as food-stuff. The notice Exh. 13 was properly served on the accused which describes the sample as the food-article. That notice is duly signed by the accused. Having paid the amount, he obtained the receipt which is Ex. 14. That receipt is duly signed by accused. Thereafter the sample was divided in three parts and put in three tin-containers which were sealed. One of them was given to the accused, another was sent to Chief Public Analyst, Amravati and third was retained with the complainant Council. Panchanama was prepared vide Exh. 15 which also bears the signature of the accused. The recitals in the panchanama show that the food article of Lakh Dal was sold for the purpose of analysis and it is signed by the accused. There is similarly a signature of the Food Inspector stating that he had obtained the sample of the food article and having paid 88 paise to the vendor as its price. All these documents cannot be in dispute nor are disputed.
(3.) IN his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that C. W. 1 had come to his shop but denied the disclosure of his identity. He says that this witness had told him that the accused was selling Lakh Dal and wanted a sample to test its colour. He denied the demand for a food article. He admitted the notice Exh. 13. Similarly, he admitted the receipt of 88 paise. Exhibit 14 is also admitted. Exhibit 15, which is the Panchanama and the process of preparation of that panchanama is also admitted. The accused admits that the Inspector gave him one tin.;


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