STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIPULBHAI NATUBHAI RAVAL (SUPPLIER)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.02.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, in Criminal Case No. 2826 of 2003, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.10.1999, the complainant visited the shop of the respondent No. 1 along with panch running in the name of Hinglaj Kirana Store situated at Civil Road, Halar Road, Nanakvada, Valsad, where the accused No. 1 was present. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant after issuing oral as well as written notice in Form No. VII to the accused purchased 1 kg. iodized salt which the accused No. 1 had stored in his shop in a packed with label Century Brand. In presence of panch witness, three samples of the iodized salt were procured and sealed into the bottle. A sample which was taken. The Public Analyst found the said sample being adulterated and, therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction filed the complaint before the Court, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 2826 of 2003. 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 Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP 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 iodized salt was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. He has further argued that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the prosecution has properly explained the delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.