VALLABHBHAI POPATBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 8th March, 1990, holding the present petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7(1) r/w. Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipal), Rajkot, while concluding the trial of the Criminal PFA Case no.304/1985 and the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2004, confirming the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction dated 8th March, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, while disposing Criminal Appeal No.2/90.

(2.) MR . P.M. Thakkar, leaned senior counsel appearing for M/s.Thakkar Associates for the petitioner, has taken me through the relevant facts and also the case of the prosecution; and submitted that the order of conviction and order of confirmation passed by both the Courts below are illegal and erroneous and both the lower Courts have failed in appreciating certain material aspects that are agitated in the grounds of memo of present Revision Application. There are number of grounds in the memo of Revision Application, however, Mr. Thakkar has concentrated his arguments mainly on three grounds.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner -accused runs milk business in the name and style of 'Sadguru Dairy Farm' in the area known as Junction Plot at Rajkot. The respondent no.2 herein visited the shop of the petitioner -accused and as the petitioner -accused was selling one of the milk products i.e. curd, he drew the sample of curd by purchasing 600 gms. of curd on 23rd May, 1995 at about 11 -30 a.m. from the shop of the petitioner -accused. The petitioner -accused was paid for the said quantity. It is also not specifically challenged that this purchase was made in presence of Panch and it was divided in three parts; and as a preservative formalin was added therein. The sample drawn by the respondent no.2 was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and it is alleged that the fat count was found less than the standard prescribed in the Act. Thus, it was an adulterated food article. It is the say of the respondent no.2 that the petitioner -accused were intimated about the report of the Public Analyst and as there is no requisition to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, the complaint came to be filed. Of course, it is contended by the respondent no.2 and documents are also produced in support of his say that before prosecuting the petitioner -accused, the respondent no.2 -orig. complainant had obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority. It is also held that it is a legal and valid sanction.