STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NASRUDIN BALUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th March, 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula, in Criminal Case No.818 of 1993. The said case was registered against the respondentsoriginal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(1)(2) and 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the respondent No.1 is the retailer and the respondent No.2 is the manufacturer. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainantFood Inspector visited the shop of respondent No.1-accused on 13th October, 1992 at about 12.50 hours purchased Hing Powder (Asafoetida) for the purpose of analysis. Ther�eafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample does not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority, complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the respondentsoriginal accused for breach of Section 7(1) of the Act and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 16 of the Act , being Criminal Case No.818 of 1993.

(3.) MR. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondents-accused. He has contended that the Food Inspector has followed the procedure and thereafter, has taken sample as per the provision of law. He has also contended that the learned trial Judge has committed error to come to a conclusion that Rule 13(2) of the Rules is not followed. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He has also contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large and therefore, contended that the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by convicting the respondents-accused.