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

¶1

 [- 1 -]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 1995

¶3

 The State of Maharashtra ]..Appellant

¶4

 Vs.
 1. Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna ]
 (Vendor & Partner) ]
 2. Shri.Atul Mathurdas Tanna ]
 (Partner) of M/s.Shreeji ]
 Traders, 298, Market Yard ]
 Sangli ]
 3. M/s.Shreeji Traders, 298 ]
 Market Yard,Sangli ]
 4. Shri.Laxman Vankappa ]
 Anegundi (Partner) ]
 5. Shri.Anand Laxman ]
 Anegundi (Partner) of ]
 M/s. Anand Flour Mill, ]
 Navalgund Dist. Dharwad, ]
 Karnataka State ]
 6. M/s. Anand Flour Mill ]
 situated at Navalgund ]
 Dist.Dharwad, Karnataka ]
 State, 582208 ]..Respondents
 (Ori.Accused)

¶5

 ....
 Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P.f for State
 Mr.R.V.More, Advocate for respondents.
 ....

¶6

 CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
 DATE : DECEMBER 9,2004
ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶7

 1. Through this appeal, the appellant i.e. State
 of Maharashtra challenges the judgment and order
 dated 11th July, 1995 passed by the learned Chief
 Judicial Magistrate, Sangli in R.C.C.No. 216 of

¶8

 [- 2 -]

¶9

 1989. By the said judgment and order, the learned
 Magistrate acquitted the respondents i.e. original
 accused nos.1 to 6 of the offence under Section 16
 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food
 Adulteration Act.

¶10

 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:

¶11

 . That the complainant P.W.1 Yeshwant Yadav was
 serving as Food Inspector in Sangli District in the
 year 1989. Accused no.1 Jayendra Tanna and accused
 no.2 Atul Tanna are partners of accused no.3 which
 is a registered partnership firm i.e. M/s.Shreeji
 Traders. Accused no.4 Laxman Anegundi and accused
 no.5 Anand Anegundi are the partners of accused no.6
 M/s. Anand Flour Mill which is a registered firm.

¶12

 . On 8th July, 1988 at about 2 p.m. the
 complainant Yeshwant Yadav visited the shop of
 accused nos.1 to 3 situated at Navalgund for the
 purpose of drawing sample from the stock of ‘Atta’
 (flour) stored for sale. He was accompanied by
 panch witness P.W.2 Pramod Kanegale. Accused no.1
 was present in the shop. The complainant disclosed
 his identity and purpose of visit and demanded 750
 gms. of ‘Atta’ from a gunny bag containing 70 kgs.
 of Atta. The complainant purchased 750 gms. of

¶13

 [- 3 -]

¶14

 Atta from the gunny bag. The said gunny bag was
 having brand of Vyankatesh manufactured by accused
 no.6. Complainant divided 750 gms. of Atta in
 three equal parts and each part was put in a dry,
 clean and empty polythene bag. Each of these three
 samples ere securely wrapped, sealed and labled. A
 detailed panchnama was prepared. The complainant
 also followed necessary procedure like information
 in form VI and notice under Section 14-A of the Food
 Adulteration Act. The complainant informed the
 accused no.1 that the sample was drawn for the
 purpose of analysis by Public Analyst. In reply to
 notice to accused no.1, he disclosed that ‘Atta’ was
 purchased from accused no.6.

¶15

 . On the very day i.e. on 8th July, 1988 the
 complainant sent one sample to the Public Analyst
 and remaining two samples were sent to the Local
 Health Authority. In due course, the complainant
 received the report of Public Analyst. The said
 report stated that sample was found adulterated and
 it did not conform to the standards laid down under
 the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.
 Thereafter, the complainant sent relevant documents
 to the Joint Commissioner for consent for launching
 the prosecution against the accused. The consent
 came to be accorded. Thereafter, the complaint came

¶16

 [- 4 -]

¶17

 to be filed.

¶18

 3. The process came to be issued against the
 accused persons. The accused appeared in response
 to the summons. The complainant was examined as
 P.W.1. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed
 against the respondents-accused. They pleaded not
 guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the
 accused is that of total denial. It is further the
 defence of the accused that they have not sold and
 stored for sale adulterated ‘Atta’ for human
 consumption. According to them, the sample was
 drawn from ‘Atta’ meant for cattle feed.

¶19

 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
 examined three witnesses i.e. complainant Food
 Inspector P.W.1 Y.S.Yadav, Panch witness P.W.2
 Pramod Kanegale. It may be noted that this witness
 P.W.2 Pramod has turned hostile. The third witness
 examined by the prosecution is P.W.3 M.V.Yadav who
 is the local Health Authority. After going through
 the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned
 Magistrate acquitted all the respondents of the
 offences charged. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

 5. I have heard Mr.A.S.Shitole, the learned A.P.P.
 for the State and Mr.R.V.More the learned advocate

¶21

 [- 5 -]

¶22

 for the respondents-accused. I have also perused
 the record pertaining to the present case. After
 carefully considering the matter, I am of the
 opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

 6. The evidence of complainant P.W.1 Yeshwant Yadav
 has already been stated briefly in para no.2 above.
 Hence, I do not find it necessary to repeat the same
 here. The evidence of complainant that he visited
 the shop of accused nos. 1 to 3 and drew samples
 from the stock of ‘Atta’ found there, cannot be
 disbelieved. However, what is required by law is
 that the representative sample should be taken and
 looking to the evidence on record, the same has not
 been done in the present case. Complainant P.W.1
 Yeshwant Yadav has clearly admitted in his cross
 examination that he has not taken sample from the
 bag with the help of ‘Poker’ from different strata.
 He has also admitted that he had not emptied bag and
 thoroughly mixed the ‘Atta’ for the purpose of
 taking sample. From this evidence on record, it
 does appear that the complainant has contravened the
 provisions of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food
 Adulteration Act.

¶24

 7. As stated earlier, P.W.2 Pramod Kanegale has
 turned hostile. Thus the last witness is P.W.3

¶25

 [- 6 -]

¶26

 M.V.Yadav the Local Health Authority. Dr.Yadav has
 clearly admitted in his cross examination that the
 complainant had not given separate intimation
 regarding one of the parts of the sample being sent
 to the Public Analyst. In view of the evidence of
 P.W.3 Dr.Yadav, it is clear that there is breach of
 provisions of Section 11(1)(c)(i) of the Prevention
 of Food Adulteration Act. However, what is fatal to
 the prosecution is the report of Public Analyst

¶27

 (Exhibit-54). It does not mention the date of

¶28

 analysis. Thus prime requirement in the report of
 the Public Analyst, has not been complied with. In
 this connection, the learned Magistrate has placed
 reliance on the decision in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Tirthising Khanuja reported in 1986
(I) P.F.A.Cases 55. In the said case, it has been
 observed that absence of the date of analysis in the
 report of Public Analyst, vitiates the entire
 prosecution. In such case, the conclusion of the
 learned Magistrate that the report of Public Analyst
 looses its evidentiary value, cannot be faulted.

¶29

 8. The learned Magistrate has based acquittal on
 the other grounds also which are reasonable.
 However, I do not find it necessary to repeat the
 same here as the two grounds reflected as above, are
 enough to sustain the acquittal.

¶30

 [- 7 -]

¶31

 9. Looking to the evidence on record, the view of

¶32

 the learned Magistrate while acquitting the
 respondents-accused is a reasonable view. It is
 well settled that if the view of acquittal could
 have been arrived that the mere circumstance that
 the appellate Court would have taken a different

¶33

 view, is no ground to interfere.

¶34

 10. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this

¶35

 appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶36

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI.J]

¶37

 [- 8 -]

¶38

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.584 OF 1995
 ( The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jayendra M.Tanna and Ors.)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, office Court’s or Judge’s orders
 Memoranda of Coram,
 appearances, Court’s
 orders or directions
 and Registrar’s orders
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P. for State
 Mr.R.V.More Advocate for
 Respondents.

¶39

 CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
 DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2004
 . For the reasons mentioned
 separately in the judgment, the
 following order is passed:
 . There is no merit in this appeal
 and the same is dismissed.
 (V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

State v. Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors. v Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors. v Jayendra Mathurdas Tanna and Ors.

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

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

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

Milind Krishna Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Shivaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. Ashwin Burabhai Patel and 2 Ors. Vs Ashwin Burabhai Patel and 2 Ors.

Eknath Shivaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra