Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sadashiv Ningappa Malgar and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2023APEAL/164/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the State's appeal against an order of acquittal. The court upheld the trial Magistrate's finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges of food adulteration due to serious infirmities in sample collection compliance and procedural violations.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal was upheld.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadashiv Ningappa… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Apeal-164-2002.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2002

¶4

State At the instance of
Rajendra Shankar Bhatkar,
Food Inspector, Food and
Drug Administration,
Maharashtra State,
‘Raghukul’ 852/8, B ward,
Subhash Road,…Appellant.
Kolhapur. (Orig.Complainant)

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Sadashiv Ningappa Malgar,
Vendor and person in-charge,
of toddy shop, situated at
Birdev Chowk, A/p. Peth Vadgaon,
Tal.Hatkanangle, Dist.Kolhapur.

¶7

2. Narayan Bhimappa Iligar,
Proprietor of toddy shop, situated at
Birdev Chowk, A/p. Peth Vadgaon,
Tal.Hatkanangle, Dist.Kolhapur.
(Appeal stands abated against respondent
no.2 as per Court’s order dated
28.11.2011) ….Respondents.

¶8

Mr AA Palkar, APP for the State-
Ms Trupti Khamkar, Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

Chitra Sonawane. Page No. 1 of 5 ____________________________________________ 7 September 2023.

¶10

Apeal-164-2002.doc

¶11

 Coram : R.N.Laddha,J.

¶12

 Date : 7 September 2023.

¶13

Judgment :

¶14

Heard Mr A.A.Palkar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the appellant State and Ms Trupti Khamkar for
the first respondent. The second respondent passed away
while the appeal was pending, and as a result, the appeal
against him was abated by an order dated 28.11.2011.

¶15

2.The Government of Maharashtra has filed this appeal to
challenge the Judgment dated 07.07.2001 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Peth Vadgaon. The Judgment
acquitted both accused (respondents herein) of offences under
Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), to (ia)(h), punishable under
Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1-A) (I) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.

¶16

3.The complainant, Rajendra Shankar Bhatkar, was
working as a Food Inspector in Kolhapur district. Accused
No.1 was a vendor, and accused No.2 owned a toddy shop in
Peth Vadgaon, where they conducted business of

¶17

Chitra Sonawane. Page No. 2 of 5 ____________________________________________ 7 September 2023.

¶18

Apeal-164-2002.doc

¶19

manufacturing, stocking and selling food items, including
toddy. On 28.09.1998, the complainant visited the shop,
disclosed his identity, and bought 1500 ml of toddy. The
samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Kolhapur, and upon
receiving the report, that the samples did not meet the
prescribed standards, launched prosecution against the
accused.

¶20

4.The prosecution, in support of the charge, examined the
complainant Rajendra Bhatkar and four more witnesses.
However, the trial Court found serious infirmities in the
prosecution’s case and concluded that the accused could not
be convicted. In the present case there is a violation of Section
11(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
and Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,
1955, which can be seen from the records and was also found
in the Judgment of the trial Court. The infirmities in the case
of prosecution are as follows : (i) the complaint and
panchnama did not mention the collection of toddy in a dry
and clean pot; (ii) the dry and clean measuring cylinder to
measure the sample; (iii) the cleaning and drying of inner and
outer caps before pouring the sample into sample bottles; (iv)
the stirring of the toddy sample after adding copper sulphate,

¶21

Chitra Sonawane. Page No. 3 of 5 ____________________________________________ 7 September 2023.

¶22

Apeal-164-2002.doc

¶23

which was admitted by the complainant but not noted in the
complaint and panchanama; (v) the complainant’s admission
that he did not receive an acknowledgement of the letter
sending Form No.VII to the Public Analyst or of the
documents and samples sent to the authority.

¶24

5.Mr AA Palkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
argued that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with
the law. However, this Court does not agree with these
submissions. The trial Court correctly identified the
infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, has strict requirements, and failure to
meet them results in the prosecution’s inability to prove the
charge. In such a situation, the trial Court rightly found the
accused/respondents not guilty of the offence.

¶25

6.Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that an
individual who has been acquitted is entitled to two
presumptions. The first presumption is based on the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a
competent Court of law. The second presumption arises after
the acquittal, where the individual’s innocence is not only

¶26

Chitra Sonawane. Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________ 7 September 2023.

¶27

Apeal-164-2002.doc

¶28

presumed but also reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by
the verdict of the trial Court.

¶29

7. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

[R.N.Laddha, J.]

¶31

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANE Date:2023.09.07 19:50:05 +0530

¶32

Chitra Sonawane. Page No. 5 of 5 ____________________________________________ 7 September 2023.

The State of Maharashtra v. Sadashiv Ningappa Malgar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sadashiv Ningappa Malgar 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

Sunil Gajanan Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Mahendra Jagtap and Anr.

Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia Vs P.S. Bindra and Anr.

Mahesh Laxmichand Shah Vs Ramesh Narayan Shetty and Ors.

Shivcharan Ramkrishna Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdulkarim Nurmahammad Pathan and Ors. Vs Mehaboobsa Mansoorasa Pathan and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadashiv Ningappa Malgar and Anr.