Dismissed

The State of Mah Thr. Food Inspector, Jalna v. Sunilkumar Rameshchandraji Modi

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011APPLN/3183/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for leave to appeal, the High Court Bench at Aurangabad examined discrepancies in the prosecution case regarding food sampling. The Court held that procedural flaws justified the trial court's acquittal, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the application. No interference was called for in the appellate jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused. Application stands dismissed. Parties sent back to the concerned Court.

The State of Mah Thr. Food Inspector, Jalna Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3183 OF 2011

¶3

THE STATE OF MAH THR. FOOD INSPECTOR, JALNA VERSUS SUNILKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRAJI MODI

¶4

Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar. R/sole Served

¶5

... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: November 24, 2011

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Heard learned APP Mrs. Kshirsagar for the applicant.

¶8

This is an application preferred by the applicant-State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.3.2011, rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in RCC No.66/1995, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence p/u/s 16 (1) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.

¶9

I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 with the assistance of learned APP for the applicant.

¶10

It is alleged that accused is the vendor of M/s Modi Jain Agencies at the relevant time i.e. on 14.5.1993 and allegations gainst the accused are that, the accused sold adulterated food article i.e. “Chainese Tea Cola M and “Chainese Tea Cola E” without possessing valid licence. (The parties herein after are referred to as per their original status i.e. ‘complainant and accused’).

¶11

Prosecution examined in all four witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused i.e. PW 1 Shrinivas Raghuji Ahire Food Inspector, PW 2 Ganesh Sudhakar Parlikar complainant and food inspector, PW 3 Kamalchand Madanlal Jain Panch witness and PW 4 Prabhakarrao

¶12

aaa/-

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

Nivrathirao Raokhande sanctioning authority.

¶15

However, it appears that while sampling food article, PW 2 Ganesh Parlikar has divided the sample in three equal parts which were sealed which were company packed packets. Then he has send the sample to the P.A. and after receipt of P.A. report and consent order, he has filed the complaint.

¶16

Hence, it is apparent that 15 packed packets of ‘Chainese T Cola’ were divided in each three parts and quantity thereof was not collected together and there after it was not separated in three parts for sampling purpose. Moreover, it also appears that said sample quantity was not put in dry container or jar as contemplated and hence, learned trial court has gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him rightly.

¶17

Moreover, it also appears that there are number of descrepancies and deformaties in the complainant’s case and evidence of the prosecution and also investigation does not appear to be proper and therefore, reasoning given by the trial court appears to be proper.

¶18

In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse and reasoning given therefor also cannot be faulted with and hence, no interference is called for in the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶19

In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court.

¶20

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶21

aaa/-

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶23

aaa/-

The State of Mah Thr. Food Inspector, Jalna v. Sunilkumar Rameshchandraji Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah Thr. Food Inspector, Jalna v. Sunilkumar Rameshchandraji Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Ofl Mahrashtra Vs Gunwant Apparao Katlakure

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kachrulal Fattechand Agrawal

Kavita Kailas Aaher Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

The State of Mah Thr. Pp Vs Shivaji Nivrutti Gute

The State of Maharashtra Vs Allauddin Mahammad Husain and Anr.

Lokseva Mudranalaya Thr. Sunil Alias Shekhar Appasaheb Vs Rajendra Appasaheb Shinde