STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANDRAKANT TULSIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 of Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 27.9.1994, rendered in Criminal Case No.950 of 1986 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhwarka. THE said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short PFA Act) in the Court of learned JMFC, Dhwarka. THE said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State 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 12.2.1986 the complainant visited the premises of the respondent accused and took the sample of Peppermint Confectionery 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 sample of Pepermint does not conform to the standards and 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, Morbi, being Criminal Case No.950 of 1986.

(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 complainant has not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act. Therefore, the Food Inspector has violated the procedure laid down under Rule 7 and 18 of the Rules. From the papers it clearly appears that the learned Magistrate has rightly observed that there is breach of the mandatory provisions of the Rules, then in that case, the accused is not to be sentenced and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.