Thane, Feb 26: The Thane Sessions Court has acquitted a 49-year-old shopkeeper accused of allegedly stocking and selling banned gutkha and tobacco products, after the prosecution miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Food Safety and Standards Act.
The court, in its order, maintained that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had administered or caused any person to consume a poisonous or intoxicating substance with intent to cause hurt.
The court, meanwhile, has directed the authorities that the seized gutkha, scented tobacco, and pan masala be destroyed after the appeal period expires.
No evidence of sale or consumption
The court noted that when the raid was conducted, no customer was present at the shop. There was no evidence that any person had purchased or consumed the seized products at the time of the raid, nor was there any material to show that anyone had suffered harm due to the alleged sale.
The testimonies of the complainant, the investigating officer, and the panch witness were found silent on any actual administration of the substance or resulting injury.
According to the prosecution, on June 29, 2021, a police team from Nayanagar Police Station was on patrolling duty near Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East), when they received secret information that a shop belonging to accused Haresh Bagadia was selling banned gutkha, pan masala, and scented tobacco.
During the raid, police claimed to have seized various brands of gutkha and tobacco products, including Rajnigandha, Vimal, Miraj, and others, collectively valued at Rs 4,920. Samples were allegedly sent for forensic analysis. The accused was arrested on June 29, 2021, and later released on bail on July 16, 2021.
Court questions investigation
The prosecution examined three witnesses, including the informant, the investigating officer, and a panch witness. However, after evaluating the evidence, the court framed key questions on whether the accused had administered or caused any intoxicating or unwholesome substance to be taken by any person, and whether the seized articles were proved to be adulterated or unsafe food.
The court also observed that no document was produced to establish the accused’s ownership or possession of the shop from which the goods were allegedly seized. During cross-examination, prosecution witnesses admitted that no ownership documents were collected during the investigation.
Also Watch:
Further, the court also noted that the panchnama did not bear the accused’s signature, casting doubt on whether the seized articles were conclusively recovered from his possession.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
