STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHREEJI AGRICO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabhoi on 21.2.1984 in Criminal Case No. 974/83 with the help of the provisions of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Code for short hereinafter).

(2.) The respondents herein are the original accused persons who came to be tried by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k) (i) 17 (1)(a) 18 (1)(c) and 29 (1) of (The) Insecticides Act 1968 (Act for short). On appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore all the accused persons came to be acquitted from the aforesaid charges against them. Hence this acquittal appeal. A few material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated at this stage.

(3.) The original complainant Mr. A.H. Patel who was working as an Agricultural Inspector at the relevant time visited the shop of accused No.1 on 19.8.1982 and took sample of insecticide known as Peretheon 2% Powder when the accused No.2-Chimanbhai Maganbhai Patel was present. The said insecticide was divided into three parts and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for testing at Junagadh on 20.8.1982. The complainant contended that he had purchased the said sample of insecticide in presence of accused No.2 as per rules and had divided it into three parts and sealed them separately. The report of the Public Analyst under Section 24 of the Act indicated that the said insecticide was sub-standard and was not conforming the prescribed standard. Therefore the complainant who was also working as Insecticides Inspector issued show cause notices to accused nos.3 4 5 and 6. Accused No.2 was a partner of accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had purchased the said insecticide from accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused No.4 is the partner of accused No.3. Accused No.5 is a manufacturing company and accused No.6 is an authorised officer of accused No.5. According to the complainant after obtaining requisite sanction he instituted the criminal complaint in the trial court against the accused persons for the aforesaid alleged offences on 9.5.1983. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances the trial court held the accused persons not guilty. Hence this appeal.