(1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.10.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No. 3305/1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges under sec. 2(1A)(A) , 7(1) & 16(1)(A)(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, leveled against him.
(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.3.1996 the Food Inspector has visited the shop of respondents-accused, and has taken the sample of Groundnut oil. Thereafter, he purchased the same and paid the price, cash memo was taken and after following the necessary procedure, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajkot for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated. On these facts, the complaint was filed before the Court, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 3305/1996 against the respondent. At the time of trial, evidence was led before the trial Court. The documents were produced and oral evidence of the witnesses were also recorded by the trial Court and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of acquittal which is impugned in this appeal.
(3.) It was contended by learned APP Mr. Vyas for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking the sample and the contents of Form No. 6 etc are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.