HEMANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-121
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on September 05,2017

HEMANT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.M.DESHPANDE, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S. A. Bramhe, Advocate for applicant and Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. The present proceeding is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the Regular Criminal Case No.129/2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon for an offence under Section 3 (1) (zz) (ix), 26 (1), 26 (2) (i), 27 (2) (c) punishable under section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Along with compilation, the complaint which gives rise to present proceeding is annexed and it is at page nos.35 to 45.
(2.) The present applicant is shown as accused no.2 in the said complaint. The cause title of the complaint depicts that he is Secretary of Gurukrupa Adiwasi Prathmik and Madhyamik Ashramshala, Thana, Tq. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. As per the complaint, the complainant Shri P. A. Umap, is Food Safety Officer duly appointed under Section 37 read with Rule 2.1.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" and "Rules" for the sake of brevity). The said Shri Umap is appointed as Food Safety Officer vide notification No.FSSA/MS/FDA/Food Safety Officers dated 01.08.2011. The complaint further proceeds that on 15.09.2012, at about 13.30 hrs. the complainant along with panch witness visited the premises of accused no.3Gurukrupa Adiwasi Prathmik and Madhyamik Ashramshala, Thana, Tq. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. That time accused no.1Raju Narayan Chute, Superintendent was present in the premises and was looking after the stock of food articles including rice for preparation of meals for students.
(3.) The complainant disclosed his identity and also his intention for drawing sample of the food articles. The complainant, after disclosing his intention for drawing the sample of rice under the said Act for test and analysis and demanded and purchased 2 Kg. Rice from the accused and paid the cost of Rs. 13.30/- of it as per the market rate and obtained cash receipt for the same. Thereafter, he issued notice in Form VA to the accused no.1 informing him that the sample was taken for analysis and obtained receipt for the same. Thereafter complainant issued notice under Rule 2.4.1 (4) to the accused no.1 asking thereby the source of sampled food article of rice and also about the fourth part and obtained receipt for the same. It was replied by accused no.1 in writing that rice is supplied by Tahsildar, Amgaon, Dist. Gondia and he does not intend to send the fourth part to any laboratory.;


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