JUDGMENT :- This is an Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, D/- 23-1-1976. The accused was charged under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offence.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are the following :--

Accused No. 1 and his son Manoharlal Hariram, who was original Accused No. 2 in the trial Court, were the owners of a Cold Drink and Ice-cream Shop known as "Ashok Lassi Centre" at Ahmednagar. On 15-5-1973 at or about 4-50 p.m. the complainant Rajaram Vaman Joshi (P.W. 1), who was a Food Inspector, visited the shop of the two accused accompanied by Panchas and purchased 900 gms. of mixed ice-cream from accused No. 1, who was then present in the shop. Joshi paid Rs. 3-30 ps. as the price of the article. He then followed the procedure laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. He handed over one sealed sample to Accused No 1 and retained two sealed samples with him. He then forwarded one sealed sample to the Public Analyst on 16-5-1973 as per the requirement of the Act. The Public Analyst in his Report found that the total solids in the sample were less than the requisite 36 per cent and the content of milk fat to be less than the requisite 10 per cent. The Public Analyst, therefore, certified that the sample was adulterated. On receiving the Report of the Public Analyst, Joshi obtained the requisite sanction and lodged a complaint against Accused No. 1 and his son Manoharlal, Accused No. 2.

The two accused were charged with the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Alulteration Act, 1954. The two accused were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ahmednagar. The learned Magistrate, by his judgment and Order dated 17-9-1975, was pleased to acquit Accused No. 2 of the offence alleged against him. The learned Magistrate, however, found Accused No. 1 guilty under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate convicted Accused No. 1 of the said offence and sentenced him till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Against the conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Magistrate the Accused No. 1 filed an Appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the Appeal of Accused No. 1 and to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against Accused No. 1 by his Judgment and Order dated 23-1-1976.

4. The State of Maharashtra has now come in Appeal against the said Order of acquittal. It is contended on behalf of the State that there are strong and compelling reasons for interfering with the order of Acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. Before I consider the arguments of the learned Advocates, it will be pertinent at this stage to cite the principle with regard to interference by the Appellate Court with an Order of Acquittal. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973 Cri LJ 1783), was pleased to observe (at p. 1787 of Cri. L. J.):-

"We are clearly In agreement with this noble proposition, stated in American Jurisprudence at one time (not now, though) as implied in the rule against double jeopardy, in the British system as a branch of the benefit of reasonable doubt doctrine and in our own on the more logical, socially relevant and modern basis, that an acquitted accused should not be put in peril of conviction on appeal save where substantial and compelling grounds exist for such a course. In India it is not a jurisdictional limitation oh the appellate court but a judge-made guideline of circumspection. But we hasten to add even here that, alth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document