STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMRATBHAI PRABHURAM DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant State has filed the present application seeking Leave to Appeal under Section 378(1) and 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banaskantha at Deesa (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 2884 of 2005, whereby the respondents accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial Court was that the accused No. 1 and 2 were the partners of the accused No. 3 partnership firm, which was run in the name and style of M/s. Shri Sainath Medical Stores. The said firm was engaged in the business of selling drugs. It was further alleged that the complainant Vipul Puroshottambhai who was working as the Drug Inspector at Palanpur had received one application on 02.02.2002 from one Naranbhai to the effect that on 27.12.2001, he had purchased the drug Saline N.D. from the store of the accused which was of the expired date and that the accused had charged Rs. 24 for the said drug though the M.R.P. was Rs. 15. The accused respondents therefore had committed the offence under Section 7 of the said Act. The Drug Inspector on the basis of said application, recorded the statement of the accused and lodged the complaint before the trial Court on 24.08.2005 against all the accused. The trial Court after recording the pre-charge and postcharge evidence, acquitted the accused - from the charges levelled against them vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present application seeking leave to appeal and sought permission to prefer Appeal.

(3.) Learned APP Ms. Shah for the applicant - State taking the Court to the impugned judgment submitted that though the applicant Naranbhai was not examined by the trial Court, the accused no. 1 himself had admitted before the Drug Inspector about the sale of drug Saline N.D. to the said Naranbhai for Rs. 24 though the M.R.P. was Rs. 15. According to her, the said statement of the accused No. 1 was exhibited by the trial Court against which no objection was raised by the accused, and therefore, the said statement should have been relied upon as an evidence by the trial Court for convicting the accused.