LAWS(GJH)-2001-3-69

SURESH H RAJPUT Vs. JAYANTILAL BHIKHABHAI SHAH

Decided On March 22, 2001
SURESH H.RAJPUT Appellant
V/S
JAYANTILAL BHIKHABHAI SHAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original complainant. Food Inspector, of Vadodara Municipal Corporation has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment and acquittal order of the respondents above named from the offences punishable under the different provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by judgment and order dated 7-3-1990 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality), Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 157 of 1987 filed by the present appellant-original complainant Food Inspector before the said Court. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly stated as follows :

(2.) That on 16-12-1986 at 10-30 a.m., the present appellant-original complainant Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation was on his official visit to different places in Vadodara City. He visited the premises of the present respondent. The first respondent was present there and he was dealing with sale of different articles. The appellant-original complainant went to the shop of the respondents and introduced himself as the Food Inspector. He also brought two panch witnesses to witness the process to be undertaken by him. He enquired about the licence from the first respondent and recorded note thereof.

(3.) Thereafter, according to the case of the appellant-original complainant, he demanded asafoetida in a quantity of 600 grams from the first respondent. The said sample was purchased by the original complainant, and thereafter, price of the sample coming to Rs. 168.00 was paid and receipt was obtained. The said sample was divided into three parts and each one was packed in different packing in accordance with the rules provided for the same. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Report was obtained and it was found that the sample was not upto the standard and it was adulterated. Thereafter, the original complainant obtained sanction to file complaint against the respondents. After obtaining sanction, the complaint was filed.