STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHANTILAL MOHANLAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 06.11.2004 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valia, in Criminal Case No.186 of 1995. The said case was registered against the present respondent -original accused for the offence under Sections 2(i -a)(a)(f), 7(i)(v) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the respondentaccused was resident of village Netrang Taluka Valia, District: Bharuch and was trading in the name of proprietor Shantilal Mohanlal Modi. On 28.10.1994, at about 3:00 p.m., the complainant Food Inspector called helper Shri H.B.Parmar and panch Shri Surendrasinh G. Jadav to take the samples from the grossery shop of the respondent -accused (Vendor). When they reached to the shop, the respondent -accused was present, The complainant disclosed his identity. The respondentaccused, at that time, was dealing in the sale of commodities. The complainant, as per requirement, kept two witnesses and in presence of pancha, collected the samples of Turmeric powder, after giving intimation. The complainant thereafter, divided the samples into three equal parts and sealed the them as required under the Act. The complainant also issued notice and prepared a panchnama. One sample was forwarded to Public Analyst Bhuj (Kutch), while remaining two samples were forwarded to the Local (Health) Authority, Bharuch. On receipt of the report indicating that the sample was adulterated and was infested with insects -fraces, the complainant addressed a letter requesting for consent, which was accorded by the competent authority. Thereafter, the complaint lodged complainant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valia, which was registered as Criminal Case No.186 of 1995. The respondent -accused was also served with the letter in accordance with the provisions contained in Section -13(2) of the Act. The respondent -accused submitted an application to the trial Court for forwarding one sample collected by the Inspector from the accused to Central Food Laboratory. The trial Court, after following the procedure laid down under Section -13 and the Rules, forwarded the samples to the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. Central Food Laboratory, forwarded its report indicating that the sampled showed presence of 130 dead insects. The trial Court, thereafter, issued summons to the respondent -accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(i -a)(a)(f), 7(i)(v) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, the respondent -accused remained present before the trial Court and Food Inspector also examined vide Exh.58.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.85 and plea was recorded vide Exh.86 and readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 2(i -a)(a)(f), 7(i)(v) and 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.The respondent -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.