SURESH H RAJPUT Vs. BHARTIBEN PRAVINBHAI SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) leave granted.

(2.) Facts in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Cri) No.1755 of 1992 would be sufficient for disposal of all the appeals.

(3.) On June 4, 1986, the appellant-Food Inspector inspected the premises of the respondent and purchased pasteurized toned milk in the presence of witnesses. He divided samples in three bottles and gave one of them to the respondent. He took with him two samples of which one was deposited with the Court and the other was sent to the analyst. Report of the analyst indicated that the milk was adulterated. Consequently, the local Health authority on June 7, 1986 granted sanction under Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') for laying the complaint against the respondent. In furtherance thereof, on June 7, 1986, a complaint was laid under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act against the respondent. The Magistrate by order dated February 8, 1991, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the consent given by the local health authority was not valid in law, though he found on merits in favour of the prosecution. On appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court by order dated October 28, 1991 refused leave and confirmed the acquittal. Thus these appeals by special leave.