1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 704 /2008
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3617 /2008
The State of Maharashtra
Through Shri M S Kembalkar
Food Inspector,
Foods & Drugs Administration
MS Chandrpaur, Tah.Chandrapur
Dist. Chandrapur. ... ...APPELLANT
V E R S U S
Vinod s/o Hanumanprasad Zanwar
Aged about 32 years,
Prop. Of Ganesh Dhanya Bhandar
Main Road, Rajura, Tah.Rajura
Dist.Chandrapur. .. ...RESPONDENT
............................................................................................................................
Mr C N Adgokar, APP for appellant
Mr. N R Bhishikar Adv. for Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED: 3rd February,2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties, at length.
2. Leave granted under section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. Criminal Application is allowed. Appeal is taken up for final hearing
forthwith.
3. It does appear that the learned trial Magistrate did consider the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:28:27 :::
2
analytical report in respect of three samples sent for Expert opinion. In
respect of those three samples, the first report indicated that the sample was
adulterated with maize and wheat starch. The second report indicated that
the sample was decomposed and not fit for analytical purpose; whereas the
third report do indicate that the sample was adulterated with Kesari Dal
flour. Under these circumstances, it appears that the benefit of doubt went in
favour of the accused on the basis of three different reports from the
Chemical Analyzer. The trial Court observed that it was difficult to find
the respondent /accused guilty on the basis of different reports creating
reasonable doubt in the mind of the learned trial Magistrate as regards the
prosecution case. It is indeed difficult to fathom as to how, when same
article Besan which was seized under panchnama dated 24.4.1995 and
divided into three samples when analysis led to three different kinds of
expert’s opinion in respect of the same. Thus, pithily put, there is question
mark on the seizure panchnama itself, which goes to the root of the matter.
4. There is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which
gets further bolstered up by judgment and order of acquittal. For all these
reasons, no interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE
sahare
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:28:27 :::
