SUMANCHANDRA B TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant orig. complainant has by this appeal challenged the order of acquittal dated 13.2.84 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol in Criminal Case no. 343 of 1974.

(2.) Complainant purchased a sample of vanaspati at about 11.15, A.M. on 27.8.73 from accused no. 13, who was sitting in the shop of accused no. 12. After duly observing the necessary formalities of taking sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst at Baroda, who, in his report dated 26.9.73 found that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules for short). The complainant then placed that report before the concerned authority, seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and on obtaining necessary sanction, criminal complaint was filed against the accused. Accused no. 12 had purchased the said sample from accused no. 11, who had purchased the same from accused no. 6, who has in turn purchased the same from accused no. 1. Accused nos. 2,3,4 and 5 are the office-bearers of accused no. 1 (accused no. 4 was the Manager of accused no. 1-company. However, he has died pending trial). Accused nos. 7 and 8 are the partner and manager respectively of accused no. 6 and accused nos. 9 and 10 are the persons who have also purchased vegetable ghee from accused no. 6. Separate cases were filed against accused nos. 9 and 10. The complainant examined necessary witnesses and after preliminary enquiry, on being satisfied that there is material to frame charge against the accused, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused on 10.10.82 (Ex.136). In the charge, it is specifically mentioned that the sample purchased from the accused is not as per specification inasmuch as on analysis of the same, the mineral oil is found. Accused nos. 1, 6 and 11 and other concerned accused were also charged in view of their sale without warranty. On completion of the evidence on the part of the complainant, plea of the accused of both of the learned Advocates for the prosectuion as well as the defence, recorded the order of acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed.

(3.) . Learned Counsel Mr. M.I. Patel appearing for the applellant has challenged this order of acquittal on the ground firstly that the learned Magistrate has erred in reading the evidence of Boman and concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample vanaspati taken from the accused did not conform to the standards specified, more particularly on the question of unsaponifiable of the standard prescribed, and, secondly that Holdes test being found positive, the sample contained mineral oil, which is prohibited in edible oils as provided in clause 17 of the Rules, as the vanaspati is refined edible oil or oils subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form. Mr. Patel, therefore, contended that even in vanaspati if mineral oil is found present, then the sample is not as per the standard specified.