HARSHADRAI M BHATT Vs. GRAMODYOG KENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant, who is Food Inspector, Vadodara, has challenged the legality of judgment dated January 2, 1989 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Muni.), Vadodara, in Criminal Case No. 4561/86, by which the respondents no.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) The appellant, who is Food Inspector attached to Baroda Municipal Corporation, visited the shop of the respondent no.1 on April 4, 1986 and purchased 600 grammes of turmeric powder from a container for the purpose of analysis. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts and prepared three separate samples, each kept in separate bottle. After various formalities, one of the sample bottles was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst indicated that the sample analysed was adulterated. Therefore, the Food Inspector obtained written consent of the competent authority for prosecuting the respondents no.1 to 3 and filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Muni.) at Baroda. In the course of trial, at the request of the respondents no.1 to 3, the third sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The report of the Central Food Laboratory indicated that the sample was adulterated. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the written consent obtained for instituting prosecution against the respondents no.1 to 3 was bad in law. It was found by the learned Magistrate that the sample purchased by the Food Inspector for analysis was not homogeneous or representative in character. In view of the above referred to conclusions, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents no.1 to 3 by judgment dated January 2, 1989, giving rise to the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. P.G.Desai, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the analysis report which indicated that the sample analysed was adulterated as well as other pertinent materials in connection therewith were placed before the authority giving consent to prosecute and as the authority after going through the materials had granted written consent to prosecute, it could not have been invalidated on the ground of non-application of mind. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not requirement of law that the sample purchased for analysis should be homogeneous in character and, therefore, a wrong reason has been assigned by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the respondents no.1 to 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, acquittal of the respondents no.1 to 3 is not well-founded at all and, therefore, the appeal should be accepted. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in (i) State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammed, 1978 AIR(SC) 933, and (ii) Suresh H. Rajput & Ors. v. Bharatiben Pravinkumar Soni & ors., 1996 7 SCC 199.