STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARKHCHAND DAHYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, State of Gujarat, through Food Inspector, Mr. B.J. Patel has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal dated May 3, 1990, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Junagadh in Criminal Case No.. 2123 of 1985 by which order the respondents came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (to be referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Complainant, who was notified and authorised as the Food Inspector for the District of Junagadh inspected the shop of the respondents situated at village Menderda, District-Junagadh on February 21, 1985. The respondents were dealing in sale of grains. grocery, seeds and pure ghee. Complainant, B.J. Patel collected samples of pure ghee in three bottles which were duly cleaned and airtight. The panchnama was prepared with regard to the collection of ghee in three bottles. After following the usual procedure under the Act one sample of ghee was sent to the laboratory for analysis. The report of the laboratory indicated that ghee did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The complainant after obtaining sanction from the competent authority lodged complaint for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 16 of the Act against the respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Junagadh which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 2123 of 1985.

(3.) To prove the charges against the respondents, Food Inspector, Babulal Joitaram Patel was examined at Exhibit 16. One Popatlal Jagabhai, who was the panch of the panchnama drawn at the time of collection of sample of ghee, was examined at Exhibit 41. Prosecution produced documentary evidence in the nature of complaint, report of the laboratory, sanction etc., to prove the case against the respondents. The learned Judge after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that there was a breach of mandatory provision of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that no evidence was led by the complainant that before taking the sample of ghee he had boiled, stirred and churned ghee to make it homogeneous. Learned Magistrate also observed that there was breach of Section 20 as sanction obtained before filing prosecution was not legal and valid. On the basis of above referred two conclusions the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the appellant.