SURESH H RAJPUT Vs. NAVALMAL PESHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and learned Advocate Ms. C.M. Shah for respondent No.6. None is present otherwise.

(2.) The Vadodara Municipal Corporation has preferred this Appeal through its Food Inspector under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 15.12.1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.1005/1983 wherein the Court acquitted the accused of the charge of committing offences punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act' for the sake of brevity. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal deserve to be set out as under.

(3.) Respondent No.1 who was the owner of the shop from where the sample was collected died during the trial; this Court has recorded that the appeal stood abated, respondent No.2 is the seller who actually was responsible for selling the food article in question, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were distributors of the food article and respondent No.5 was producer of the said food article. The original complainant Food Inspector in discharging of his duties as such, on 29.12.1983 at about 9.30 in the morning, visited the shop of the accused No.1 in presence of panch witness at the time when the accused no.2 was present in the shop. The accused no.2 was dealing in edible items, stationery, cutlery etc. The complainant noticed that in the showcase of the shop, packets of 'chat masala' of 100 grams each were displayed of MDH Brand. The complainant after notifying his intention to purchase the same for purpose of examination, purchased 600 grams of 'chat masala', i.e. 6 packets of 'chat masala' on payment of Rs.26.10 and after dividing the same into 3 parts, in accordance with law, one portion of the said masala was sent to analyst for examination and remaining two portions were sent to legal health authorities as per law. On receipt of the report of the public analyst containing the opinion that the sample did not conform to the provisions of the PFA Act and rules and the sample was misbranded and represented sub-standard curry powder and it did not conform to the ingredients, the accused were responsible for committing offences punishable under Section 16 of the PFA Act. The accused no.3 had sold this 'chat masala' to the original vendor and hence, they being the distributors, 3 and 4 were roped in. The accused No.5 being producer was roped in vide order dated 18.12.1998. The Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that prosecution could not prove its case beyond doubt and hence, on account of the failure on part of the prosecution in proving its case, acquitted the accused respondent herein above of the charge of committing offences punishable under Section 16 of the PFA Act. The said acquittal order dated 15.12.1989 is impugned in this Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.