Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishor Thanmal Kothari and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2013APEAL/630/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a State appeal challenging the acquittal of ten accused in a food adulteration case. The Court found no grounds for interference, rejecting the prosecution's arguments regarding defects in notice issuance and delay caused by the perishable nature of the food items.

What did the court decide?

The State appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of all ten accused stands upheld.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kishor Thanmal Kothari… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

sbw

apeal630.03

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.630 OF 2003

¶6

The State of Maharashtra	)
(through Mr. K. A. Shintre, Food Inspector, FDA, Pune. vs.	) )	...Appellant (Orig. Complainant)
1] Kishor Thanmal Kothari Vendor and person incharge of M/s. Kubera Mini Market Kubera Park, Building No.8 Shop No.8, Kondhawa, Pune.	) ) ) ) )
2] Smt. Kusum Kishor Kothari (Proprietor) of M/s. Kubera Mini Market, Kubera Park, Building No.8, Shop No.8 Kondhawa, Pune.	) ) ) ) )
3] Mr. Gautam Chand Saremalji Bhandari,	) )
Partner of M/s. Vardhaman Agencies, Pune.	) )
4] Mrs. Santosh Vijay Mehta Partner of M/s. Vardhaman Agencies, Pune.	) ) )
5] Mr. Dilip Rangraj Mehta Partner of M/s. Vardhaman Agencies, Pune.	) ) )
6] M/s. Vardhaman Agencies Shop No.3, Himalaya House Bhairoba Nala, Pune-Solapur Road, Pune-1.	) ) ) )
7] Mr. Suresh Awasthi-Area Executive and Nominee of M/s. Marico Industries Ltd., Pune.	) ) )
8] M/s. Marico Industries Ltd. 44/3, Saswad Road, Uruli	) )
Devachi, Tal-Heveli Dist-Pune.	) )

¶7

sbw	2/4		apeal630.03
9] Mr. Dattatraya R. Joshi	)
Nominee of M/s.Kanmoor	)
Foods Ltd.,	)
Pune.	)
10]M/s. Kanmoor Foods Ltd.	)
A/P. Khalad, Tal.Purandhar	)
Dist-Pune.	)	...Respo (Orig.	ndents Accused)

¶8

Ms. A. A. Mane Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18^th October, 2013

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

1] In all 10 accused were involved in Regular Criminal Case No.24 of 1998 for offences punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and Section 7(v) read with Rule 55(6) punishable under Section 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

¶12

2] This is a State appeal against acquittal.

¶13

3] The case proceeds in admitted factual ground and the defence of accused which is narrated in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the impugned judgment which read as follows:-

¶14

“11. It is undisputed fact that the food inspector Kharade took sample of food article in the same condition in which it was purchased by accused No.2. Thus the purchasers i.e. accused No.2 to 8 are protected by the warranty. In other words accused No.1 to 8 are

sbw

apeal630.03

3/4

entitled to get protection u/s 19(2) of the Act.

¶19

Now adverting to the defence of accused no.9 and 10, the complainant has filed this case after about 20 months from the date of taking sample. The food article is of perishable nature and inordinate delay in filing the prosecution has caused serious prejudice to accused no.9 and 10.”

¶20

4] Further admitted factual background is as follows:-

¶21

(a) On 31 .07.1996 the Food Inspector collected sample from the premises of accused No.2.

¶22

(b) Sample were sent to public analyst.

¶23

¶24

5] It is evident that:-

¶25

(a) The report along with notice Exh.77 was sent to accused No.6 only and not to other accused particularly the manufacturer.

¶26

(b) The food subject matter is a perishable item and has got limited shelf life.

¶27

(c) The intimation of the laboratories report was served on the accused manufacturer only almost after 16 months and 21 days after the date of expiry, and interalia, on this ground the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution was vitiated.

¶28

sbw

¶29

apeal630.03

¶30

6] In these undisputed premises, this Court finds that there are no ground whatsoever to grant any indulgence.

¶31

7] Appeal has no merit and is dismissed.

¶32

wadhwa

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishor Thanmal Kothari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishor Thanmal Kothari and Ors.

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

Mustakin Nawab Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakil Shamimuddin Peerjade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Moinuddin Papamiya Peerzade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Ramdas Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Hari Rupvate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaishali Sanjay Bhutada and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra