ARVINDBHAI RAVJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section-401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and conviction order recorded by the learned JMFC at Vanthali dated 19.4.1991 in Criminal Case No.200/1985 under which the learned Magistrate had convicted the present petitioner and his co-accused for an offence punishable under Section-7 read with Section-16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for six months. The petitioner was also directed to pay fine of Rs.500/in default of fine he was required to further undergo S.I. for 3 months. The said judgment and conviction order were confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.16/1991 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 20.9.2000 under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had partly allowed the said appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the 1st accused - Ravji Vashram and conviction of the present petitioner was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction order, the petitioner has preferred this Revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the said Code.

(3.) . It has been mainly contended that the Food Inspector has not collected and sent the sample in the manner provided by the rules framed under the said Act. It has also been contended that in fact, no seal was affixed on the container and, therefore, the mandatory provision for sealing the container has been followed when the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It is further contended that the sample was also sent to the Central Food Laboratory and as per the Central Food Laboratory, it is not noticed that the seal on the container as well as the specimen seal were compared by the Officer of the said laboratory in accordance with the Rule-4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule 1955. That, therefore, the judgment and order of the two courts below convicting the present petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There is apparent violation of the mandatory provision of the said rules. That, therefore, the present Revision Application be allowed and judgment and conviction order recorded by the two courts below against the petitioner may be set aside and the petitioner herein may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.