M J RANA Vs. CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAGJIBHAI RAJODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-Surat Municipal Corporation through its Food Inspector has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th March, 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat, in P.F.A. Case No.18 of 2000. The said case was registered against the respondent Nos.1 and 2original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act).

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 07th September, 1998 at about 14.00 hours, the Food Inspector visited the shop of respondent No.1, viz. Umiya Trading Company where the respondent No.1-original accused was found present, who was the sole proprietor / owner of the shop. The appellant-Food Inspector thereafter after giving his identity, purchased groundnut oil of Gopal Brand Double Filtered Suddh Singtel from the packed tin of 15 kgs. in presence of the panch by paying consideration. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said sample 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 and was adulterated. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority, complaint was filed against the respondent No.1original accused for breach of Section 7(1) of the Act and thereby the accused have committed an offence under Section 16 of the Act.

(3.) MR.Shah 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 Judicial Magistrate has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2-original accused. He has contended that the Food Inspector has followed the proper procedure and thereafter, has taken sample as per the provision of law. He has also contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in giving benefit of doubt to the respondent No.2 under Section 7(1) of the Act. He has also contended that the learned Magistrate has committed error in not believing the report of the 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 Magistrate is required to be quashed and set aside by convicting the respondent No.1-original accused.