Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
State at the instance of Shri. D.S. Patil, Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration – Appellant
Versus
Mahadev Yeshwant Ballal and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2002
Decided On : 11-05-2017
Food Adulteration - Quashing of Order - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7(i) r/w. 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m), Section 16
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused due to the absence of the complainant and the learned APP, leading to the dismissal of the case in default.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the case in default was not warranted as the absence of the complainant was not deliberate or intentional, and the complainant, a public servant, was not even issued summons.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the dismissal of the case in default due to the absence of the complainant and the learned APP.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal of the case in default was not justified considering the peculiar facts of the case, and therefore, quashed and set aside the impugned order, restoring the case back to its original file.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside, with the case being restored back to its original file. Both the complainant and the accused were directed to appear before the court, and the hearing of the case was expedited, with the direction to complete the case within six months.
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra, the Appellant has impugned the Order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Chandgad, District - Kolhapur by which the Respondent - accused came to be acquitted, as the case was dismissed in default.
3. Learned APP submitted that though the case was adjourned from time to time, the dates were formal dates. He submitted that technically only on the previous date i.e. 22.11.2001 the Complainant was absent, pursuant to which, on the next date i.e. 29.12.2001, as the Complainant and the learned APP were absent, the case was dismissed in default and the Respondent - accused were acquitted of the offences.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the Appeal. He submits that the Complainant was absent on several dates and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned Order dated 29.12.2001.
5. Perused the papers.
6. The Complainant is the Food Inspector, who has lodged a complaint as against the Respondent - accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 7(i) r/w. 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Admittedly, the case against the Respondent - accused has not been heard on merits and they were acquitted by the learned Judge, as he was pleased to dismiss the case in default, as the Complainant was absent and there was no representative of his present, and as no adjournment Application was preferred.
7. In the facts, it would be necessary to consider the roznama of the case. A perusal of the roznama shows that the complaint was presented by the Complainant in person and was registered on 12.06.2000 and process was issued as against the Respondent - accused, on the very same day. On 23.06.2000, the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 filed his Vakalatnama and so did the Advocate for the Respondent No.2. On the said date, an order was passed issuing yadi to the Food Inspector. On 10.07.2000, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 was present and so was the Complainant. An Application was preferred by the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to send the sample to the Central Laboratory. Pursuant thereto, the learned Judge passed an order directing the Respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.1,000/- by Demand Draft. The matter was adjourned for depositing the Demand Draft to 17.07.2000. On 17.07.2000, the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 was present and so was the Complainant. The matter was adjourned for receipt of Analysis report from the Central Laboratory, Kolkata to 17.08.2000. On 17.08.2000, the case was again adjourned for receipt of Analysis report from the Central Laboratory to 04.10.2000. On 29.08.2000, a letter dated 18.08.2000 was received along with the Analysis report. Accordingly, an order was passed and an acknowledgement letter to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata was issued. On the next date i.e. 04.10.2000, the Respondent - accused and their Advocates were absent and so was the Complainant. As the Respondent - accused were absent and as they had not furnished sureties, an NBW was issued as against them. The learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the exemption Application filed by the Advocate for the Respondent - accused and the case was adjourned for execution of the NBW issued against the Respondent - accused, to 31.10.2000. On 31.10.2000, the Presiding officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned for execution of NBW to 10.11.2000. On 10.11.2000, the Respondent No.1 appeared, however, the Complainant was absent. The Application preferred by the Respondent No.1 for cancellation of NBW was allowed. The personal bond and surety bond of the Respondent No.1 were accepted and the matter was adjourned for execution of NBW qua the Respondent No.2. On 13.11.2000, non-bailable warrant was issued against the Respondent No.2, who was residing at Belgaum. On 05.01.2001, the Respondent No.1 was presen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
