State vs. Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr. Vs Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr.

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 1995

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 1. Arvind R. Shaha (Vendor)

¶8

 2. Sandip Rajashi Shaha,
 M/s. Sandip Oil Depot,
 Daruvala Building,
 Near Civil Hospital,
 Thane ...Respondents.

¶9

 Shri. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for appellant.

¶10

 Shri. M.K. Kocharekar i/b P.S. Dani for
 respondents.

¶11

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶12

DATED: 8TH DECEMBER, 2004

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶14

 1. Through this appeal, the appellant i.e. State

¶15

 of Maharashtra challenges the judgment and order
 dated 16.3.1995 passed by the learned Chief
 Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Regular Criminal case
 No. 82/93. By the said judgment, the learned
 Magistrate acquitted the respondents i.e. original
 accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence under sections
 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b), 2(ia)(c) and 2(a)(m)
 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of

¶16

 (-2-)

¶17

 Food Adulteration Act.

¶18

 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶19

 . The respondent No.1 Arvind Shaha was the vendor
 of M/s. Sandip Oil Depot and respondent No.2
 Sandip Shaha was the proprietor of M/s. Sandip Oil
 Depot. On 18.7.92 the complainant P.W.1 Mohan
 Patankar visited the shop of respondent M/s.
 Sandip Oil Depot near Civil Hospital, Thane. The
 respondent No.1 was present in the shop as a vendor
 and he disclosed that the respondent No.2 is the
 proprietor. The complainant P.W.1 Mohan Patankar
 disclosed his identity and stated his intention to
 take sample of Rapeseed Oil for analysis. He
 purchased 450 gms Rapeseed Oil (Refined) for
 Rs.15.30 Ps. The said sample was packed in a clean
 and dry container. The appellant issued receipt
 for Rs.15.30 Ps. Notice under form VI and under
 section 14(a) were issued to the respondent No.1.

¶20

 . The sample which was purchased was equally
 divided in three clean, dry and empty glass
 bottles. The bottles were corked, sealed, wrapped
 and packed. Thereafter, four seals were placed on
 each of the bottle so as to prevent tampering.
 Thereafter, label containing necessary details was
 fixed on each of the said bottles. On 20.7.92 the

¶21

 (-3-)

¶22

 complainant P.W.1 Mohan Patankar sent one sample
 with form VII in a sealed cover to the Public
 Analysts. The Food Inspector received the report
 from Public Analysis that the sample is
 adulterated. Hence, he obtained sanction from the
 authority and lodged complaint.

¶23

 3. In support of his case the prosecution has
 examined only Food Inspector P.W.1 Mr. Mohan
 Patankar. After his evidence, the learned
 Magistrate heard both sides and framed charge
 against both the respondents. Respondents pleaded
 not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be
 tried. After framing of the charge the respondents
 have cross examined P.W.1 Mohan Patankar in detail.
 After going through the evidence adduced by the
 prosecution, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
 respondents. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

 4. I have heard Shri. Shitole, the learned A.P.P.
 for the appellant-State andthe learned advocate for
 the respondents. I have also perused the entire
 material on record pertaining to the present case.
 After carefully considering the matter, I am of the
 opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

 5. In the present case panch witness has not been
 examined and the only witness who has been examined

¶26

 (-4-)

¶27

 is P.W.1 Mohan Patankar. The learned Magistrate
 has acquitted the respondents-accused on the ground

¶28

 that there is no compliance of Rule 16(c). He has
 relied on the decision of this Court reported in
1985(2) P.F.A. Cases 1988. In the present case it
 is seen that the Code Number, Serial Number and
 other details on the slip are not mentioned in the
 complaint as well as panchanama. Neither the
 complaint nor the panchanama or the evidence on
 record reveals that the paper slip had the contents
 as mentioned above. In such case the conclusion of
 the learned Magistrate that there is a breach of
 Rule 16(c) which is mandatory and which would
 result in the acquittal of the respondents is a
 reasonable and possible view.

¶29

 6. Moreover, in the present case the report of
 Public Analysis does not mention the date when the
 sample was analysed and by whom it was analysed and
 in such case it would not be safe to rely on the
 report of the Public Analyst. I see nothing wrong
 in the approach of the learned Magistrate. The
 learned Magistrate has also given some other
 plausible reasons for acquittal in the impugned
 judgment, however, I do not want to overburden this
 judgment by reiterating the same. It is well
 settled that if the view of acquittal could have

¶30

 (-5-)

¶31

 been reasonably arrived at, then the mere

¶32

 circumstance that the appellate Court could have
 taken a different view, would be no ground to
 interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth
 of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am only
 referring to two of them i.e. A.I.R. 1971 S.C.
66 (Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar) and (2003) 1
S.C.C. 1 (C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair).

¶33

 In the case of C. Anthony, the Supreme Court has
 observed that unless findings of the trial Court
 are perverse or contrary to the material on record,
 the High Court cannot in appeal, substitute its
 findings merely because other contrary opinion was
 possible on the basis of the material on record.
 In my view, the view of acquittal was a reasonable
 and possible view.

¶34

 7. Taking all these facts into consideration, the
 conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate
 that the prosecution has not proved its case is a
 possible and reasonable view. Criminal appeal is
 dismissed. The appellants are on bail, their bail
 bonds stand cancelled.

State v. Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr. v Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr. v Arvind Rayashi Shaha-Vendor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind Krishna Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. R.A. Kadar and Anr. Vs Rizwant Abdul Kadar and Anr.

Vijayalaxmi S. Nikam Vs Dr. Parshuram B. Badwaik and Anr.

State vs. Mohan Bapusaheb Malgaonkar and Anr. Vs Mohan Bapusaheb Malgaonkar and Anr.

Eknath Shivaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors. Vs Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors.