- (1.) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2000 passed in R.C.C. No. 38 of 1999 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune thereby acquitting the respondent of the offences puni-shable under various sections of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to PFA Act in short). Briefly stated, the facts are as under :
(2.) The respondent was prosecuted by the State at the instance of Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Pune on the allegations that on 19.05.1998 at about 12.30 p.m. the respondent who was a vendor and proprietor of M/s. Neelam Food Products situated at 59/A, Mundawa, Pune was found to be storing, distributing and selling a food article, a Pan Masala under the brand name Jani Khushbu scented Pan Masala which was adulterated and not found to be in conformity with the standards prescribed for the same under PFA Rules, 1955 read with relevant sections of the PFA Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the Food Inspector, on his visit to the shop of the respondent on 19.05.1998 at about 12.30 p.m. had purchased 15 packets of the said Pan Masala each of which weighing 70 gms by making payment of Rs.285/- to the respondent and then dividing 15 packets into 3 parts, each part comprising 5 sealed packets, prepared 3 samples required for the purpose of inquiry and investigation for ascertaining whether the samples were adulterated or not. They were tied horizontally and vertically by means of a strong thread and seals were affixed to it. According to the prosecution proper sealing procedure was adopted. On 20.05.1998, one sealed part of the sample together with mandatory Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Kolhapur for analysis and report. The remaining sealed parts were sent together with Form No. VII to local Health Authority, Pune. The result of the analysis disclosed that the sample examined did not conform to the standards prescribed under the PFA Rules, 1955 read with relevant sections of the PFA Act and found to be adulterated. It was particularly noted that the sample contained ash, to the extent of 8.17%, which percentage was slightly higher (by .17%) than the permissible limits. Therefore, after obtaining consent to prosecute the respondent and after completion of investigation, the complaint was filed against the respondent.
(3.) As the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried, he was tried for the offences under Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) read with Section 7(i), 7(v) read with Rule 42(zzz)(1) and under Section 16 of the PFA Act with which he was charged. On merits of the case, the learned CJM found that the prosecution failed to prove all the offences that were charged against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned CJM acquitted the respondent of the said offences by his judgment and order dated 18.11.2000. Not being satisfied with the said order, the State chose to approach this Court in the present appeal.;