Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Vithoba Tarase (Vendor) and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2020APEAL/157/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of accused persons under the Food Adulteration Act. The High Court held that the public analyst's report was defective for failing to specify the type of insect damage or the exact standards violated. Consequently, the Court relied on the lower court's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court was affirmed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vasant Vithoba Tarase… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

apeal-157-04(222).doc

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2004

¶4

The State of Maharashtra)
At the instance of )
Shri A. N. Ransubhe,)
Food Inspector, Food and )
Drugs Adminstration (M.S.))
Sadarbazar Camp, Satara,)..Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. Shri Vasant Vithoba Tarase)
(Vendor))

¶7

2. Shri Surakant Vithoba Tarase)
(Proprietor of Surakant Vithoba)
Tarse Kirana Merchant, situated)
A/p Kalendhon, Tal Khatav,)
District Satara)..Respondents
(Orig. Accused Nos.1 & 2)

¶8

Ms Pallavi Dabholkar APP for Appellant

¶9

 CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
 DATE : 14th FEBRUARY, 2020

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶11

1This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 27-8-
2003 passed by JMFC, Vaduj, Satara, acquitting respondents (accused) of
charges under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b) and 2(ia)(j)
and Section 7(v) read with Section 23 of Food Adulteration Act 1954.

¶12

2I have considered the evidence and the documents. The
allegations against the accused are that they were selling “Sunth” (whole),

¶13

Meera Jadhav

¶14

apeal-157-04(222).doc

¶15

2 / 2

¶16

which Ms Dabholkar states is dried ginger, which did not conform to the
standards as per PFA Rules 1955. Copy of the public analyst is at Exhibit 52.
In the report of the public analyst, it is mentioned “ the sample …….
contains added colouring matter namely Ultramarine Blue and insect
damaged matter more than prescribed limit and does not conform to the
standards of Sunth whole as per PFA Rules 1955”. The report, however,
does not mention what kind of insect damage it was. It does not also
mention what were the standard prescribed as per PFA Rules, which were
not conformed with.

¶17

3Therefore, in my view, the report itself is defective. Therefore, I

¶18

agree with the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court.

¶19

4Appeal dismissed.

¶20

Meera Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Vithoba Tarase (Vendor) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Vithoba Tarase (Vendor) and Anr.

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 of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Daji Khatkar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Bapu Gavade and Ors. (Not Admit as Per Court Order Dated 08.07.2004)

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Nathu Pawar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vasant Vithoba Tarase (Vendor) and Anr.

Ahmed Shahabuddin Shaikh and Anr. Vs Tej Saran and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Habib Saiyyad Ahamad Jamkhandi and Ors.