RAMANBHAI PUJABHAI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant, under Section 378 (4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 16.11.2009, rendered in Criminal Case No.6192 of 1995 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand. THE said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Sections 2(1a), (9a) and 2(1a) (m), 7(1)(5) and 16(1)(a)(2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned JMFC, Anand. THE said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 21.10.1997 the complainant visited the premises of the respondent " accused and took the sample of milk (condensed milk) of four bottles for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report in which it has been found that "the samples of milk (condensed milk) was found adulterated and not as per provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955." Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondent " accused in the Court of learned JMFC, Anand, being Criminal Case No.6192 of 1995.

(3.) I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. It appears that the panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has observed in his judgment that there is no any independent witness has been examined in support of the case of the complainant and there was breach of Section 13(2) of the Act. Even there was tampering with the samples and as per the report of the public analyst, there was flavored milk not milk, which was taken as sample. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.