RAMESH GANPATRAO BENDBAR Vs. JIVANLAL MANGALDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are filed by the Food Inspectors attached to Vadodara Municipal Corporation challenging the judgments and orders of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents.

(2.) I have heard Mr R C Kodekar, Ld. APP for the State. Mr P G Desai, learned advocate appears for the Food Inspectors. I have also heard Mr K V Shelat, Mr A I Pathan appearing for Mr B S Patel and Mr R A Variava, learned advocates for the respondents. I have also gone through the record of the appeals and in particular the evidence and judgments of the trial Court. The judgments of the Ld. Magistrate clearly show that the factor that has weighed with him the most is that the consent has been accorded under section 20 of the Act without application of mind since the Local Health Authority did not assign any reason for grant of it. While doing so, reliance has been placed by the Ld. Magistrate on the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v/s. Vishram and others and also judgment of the same High Court rendered in the case of Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in F.A.G. 1987 - 2 p. 95.

(3.) In these circumstances, now I am required to examine the alternative submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respondents. In the case of the State of Maharashtra v/s. M/s. Gopalprasad Govindprasad Agarwal [supra] the Apex Court has upset the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused on the ground of improper consent and confirmed by the High Court. But thereafter in para. 5 it has stated as under :-