N M PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector, Bharuch Nagar Palika, challenges the judgment and order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, rendered on December 13, 1989 in Criminal Case No.3277/86 acquitting respondent No.2 of the charges punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as under :- 2.1 The Food Inspector Mr.N.M. Patel visited the shop of respondent No.2 in Hazikhana Bazar of Bharuch, on March 7, 1986 at about 11:30 a.m. with peon Jagjivanbhai Girdharbhai. He summoned panch Rameshchandra Vaikunthlal and thereafter purchased groundnut oil as well as shingoda flour, after following required procedure. The samples were divided into three parts and were packed, wrapped and sealed. The samples were sent to Public Analyst for analysis and it was found that the sample of the groundnut oil did not conform to the prescribed standards. Requisite consent as required under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, was obtained from the Local Health Authority and compliant was lodged in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was proceeded with. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish charges against the accused and therefore recorded the order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) IT is contended further that the Court was impressed by the fact that the signature of the accused on acknowledgment slip was in English whereas she has signed at all other places in Gujarati and therefore the prosecution could not prove that the required procedure is followed as required under the Act, intimating the accused about the receipt of the Public Analyst report and the option of sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory. She submitted that notice was sent through postal department and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, a presumption may be drawn that the postal authority has delivered the letter to the address in accordance with Rule and the accused having not deprived, the fact of receipt of the notice the Trial Court ought not to have held that the mandatory requirement has not been followed. As regards the bottles in which sample was taken, the Trial Court has held that there is no evidence to indicate that the bottles were not cleaned and sterilized and therefore it is a matter of doubt whether the Public Analyst report reflects the correct quality of the sample. Ms.Sheth submitted assuming for a moment, that the bottles were not dried and therefore assuming that the reasons would be only in respect of presence of Food Adulteration, or at the most one or two ingredients would be not conforming to standards whereas if the report of the Public Analyst which is received is seen mainly eight ingredients are found to be not conforming to the prescribed standard. She therefore urged that considering the errors committed by the Trial Court in assuming evidence, the appeal may be allowed.