STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJESH D THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has come up in appeal against the order dated 3-9-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kutch-Bhuj in Criminal Case No. 821 of 1988 whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted of the alleged offence punishable under Secs. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) On 28-11-1984 at around 15-45 hrs. one Shri R. V. Dodia, Food Inspector went to the shop of the respondent No. 3 i.e., partnership firm-Naranji Nenshi and Company located at main bazar, Kutch-Bhuj and in presence of panch witnesses purchased 300 grams, katho. The usual procedure for sending it to the Public Analyst was duly followed and accordingly one part in sealed bottle was forwarded on 29-11-1994 to Public Analyst, Kutch-Bhuj. On the same day i.e. on 29-11-1994, the remaining two parts of the sample were sent to the Local Health Authority. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Local Health Authority was approached seeking permission to prosecute. This application was made on 1-1-1988. Accordingly, on 15-1-1988, the Local Health Authority, Kutch-Bhuj had accorded his sanction and as a consequence thereof the present respondents were sought to be prosecuted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide complaint dated 17-2-1988.

(3.) After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record and recording deposition of various witnesses, the trial Court has acquitted the accused principally on two grounds. Firstly, it is held that at the time of forwarding the sample bottle to Public Analyst, Kutch-Bhuj, the Local Health Authority was not given the intimation statutorily required to be given as per provision of Sec. 11(1)(c)(i) of the Act. Though it is stated in the oral deposition that such written intimation was sent to the Local Health Authority, the trial Court has found as a matter of fact that no such written intimation seems to have been sent and there is no evidence to support the oral testimony of Shri P. V. Dodia, the Food Inspector. It is further found'that the Prosecuting Authority viz. Shri L. A. Pathan, Food Inspector, has produced the list of documents but even in the said list there is no reference to the written intimation sent by Shri Dodia to the Local Health Authority. The trial Court has thus held that the provisions of Sec. 11(1)(c)(i) are mandatory provisions and in absence of compliance of the same, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case to the hilt against the accused.