Oral Judgment:

1. This is an appeal preferred by the original complainant – Ahmednagar Municipal Council through its Food Inspector, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.240 of 1992, decided on 30.05.1998.

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as follows:-

On 15.01.1991, Food Inspector – Mohammad Munaf was working with Ahmednagar Municipal Council (which with the passage of time has become Municipal Corporation) visited the shop of respondent No. 4 – M/s. Poonamchand Haridas along with panch Vasant Kantilal. At that time appellant No. 1 – Dullabhdas was present in the shop and was doing business of selling articles. Complainant Food Inspector Mohammad Munaf disclosed his identify and expressed purpose of his visit, inspected shop and took sample of Anand Masala Supari stored for selling in the shop. He purchased 750 grams of Anand Masala Supari and paid price of Rs. 45/-. He also issued notices under Section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, so also Form No. VII. Thereafter, the sample was divided into three parts. The samples were taken in clean, empty, dry brown packets and packed with gum. The packets were labelled and sealed as required by law. Memorandum of acts done was prepared. Thereafter, one sample was sent to Public Analyst, Pune and other two samples were sent to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar, which was Local Health Authority. Respondent/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are partners of respondent/accused No.4 firm. They claim to have purchased Anand Masala Supari from respondent No.5. The public analysis found saccharin in the food article, which was prohibited. Ultimately, complaint was filed against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the Court after following necessary procedure.

3. At the time of evidence the complainant – Food Inspector examined himself, panch witness Vasant and Public Analyst Mrs. Aparna Pinge. Accused No. 2 had died pending trial. Original accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 claimed immunity under Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to them they had purchased Anand Masala Supari from respondent/accused No.5, who was duly licenced manufacturer and distributor. They have claimed protection of warranty given by original accused No.5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused. It is this order of acquittal, which is challenged in this appeal.

4. Heard Adv. Shri V.S. Bedre for the appellant, Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,3 to 5 and A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh for respondent No.6/State.

5. The Trial Court has acquitted respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, there was violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in as much as sample was not properly taken in proper container and secondly the Court has come to a conclusion that in the meantime there was amendment to the relevant rule and saccharin was permitted to a particular limit so far as the Supari is concerned. Maximum limit of saccharin sodium was allowed is 4000 p.p.m. and saccharin found in the sample was within permissible limits. However, the Court did not accept defence of accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 of warranty as the original purchase receipt was not placed on record.

6. The learned advocates Shri V.S. Bedre and Adv. Shri Vijay Sharma have taken me through the evidence of Food Inspector Mohammad Munaf recorded at Exh.45. Mohammad Munaf has stated that he had purchased three packets of 250 grams Supari. The sample of Supari purchased by him was divided into three separate parts and filled them in clean, empty, dry brown packets and packed them with gum. The packets were sealed with wax seal. Each of the packet was affixed with slip containing description of sample, code number of L.H.A. and signature of himself and panch witness thereon. Each part was wrapped in brown paper and packed and then t