STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHANDAS SEVANDAS VANJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the State of Gujarat against the order dated 5.9.2009 passed below Exh.24 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, F.T.C.No.5, Banaskantha District, Palanpur whereby the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Danta below Exh.9 in Criminal Case No.331 of 2005 dated 22.1.2007 discharging the accused no.1-respondent no.1 is confirmed.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this petition are such that on receiving a telephone message from the Ambaji Police Control Room that the stock of Galav Brand Ghee is seized and samples of the same are required to be taken under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ?PFA Act?), the original complainant-petitioner no.2, after following the due procedure prescribed under the PFA Act and PFA Rules, after obtaining the report from the Public Analyst and after obtaining consent from the Local Health Authority under Section 20 of the PFA Act, a Criminal Case No.331 of 2005 came to be instituted against the present respondent along with other three accused. During the course of hearing, the respondent herein, vide Exh.9, requested the learned Magistrate to discharge him from the charges levelled against him on the grounds narrated in the application. THE petitioner no.2 herein submitted his reply to the discharge application vide Exh.10. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate First Class, Danta, District : Banaskantha was pleased to discharge the respondent herein-original accused no.1 from the charges levelled against him vide order dated 22.1.2007 passed below Exh.9 in Criminal Case No.331 of 2005.

(3.) IN this case, it is an admitted fact that without recording evidence, at preliminary stage, this point is raised by the accused and so question does not arise to discharge the accused. The trial Court has accepted the panchanama and bill produced by the accused in toto and came to the conclusion that the accused is entitled to get benefit under Section 19(2) of the PFA Act, which cannot be said legal and hence required to be quashed and set aside. The appellate Court has also not interpreted the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Chandra Babulal Khilosiya (supra) in its proper perspective and committed error in confirming the order of the trial Court, which also requires to be quashed and set aside.