STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VADILAL POPATLAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 27th March, 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar in Summary Case No. 808 of 1988 acquitting the respondent accused of the charges under Section 7 and 16 of the Code of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). This court (Coram : A.N. Divecha, J.) vide order dated 1.10.1996 admitted the appeal and the hearing was expedited.

(2.) The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector, as such in the Bhavnagar District, visited the shop of the vendor accused on 7.11.1987 situated at Vartej at about 9.30 AM. He had called panch witness Shri Narsang Haribhai Mori. After introducing himself as a Food Inspector and informing the accused vendor that he had came to collect the sample, he purchased 750 grams of Split Pulse (Dal) Moong popularly known as "Mag Dal" out of 2 Kgs. Mag Dal kept in an open wooden box. The necessary notice under Form 6 was issued and the Food Inspector obtained the signature of the vendor thereon. The same is produced at Ex.32. The receipt of payment for price of 750 grams being Rs.5=25ps. was also obtained and it is produced at Ex.33 on the record. The sample food article was, thereafter divided into three equal parts and collected in a dried, cleaned, odour less glass bottle. The glass bottles were tighten with wooden seal so as to prevent moisture or any other particles from getting into it. After applying the seal and containing the requisite details, the panchnama was drawn of the incident of collecting the sample. One part of the sample food article was sent to the Public Analyst after filling the memorandum in Form No. 7, which is produced at Ex. 34. The intimation of sample being sent to the Public Analyst was sent to the Local Health Authority, Bhavnagar, copy whereof is produced at Ex.35. The receipt, of parcel sent through State Transport to Public Analyst Bhuj, dated 7.11.1987 is produced at Ex.36. The registered AD receipt for receiving the memorandum and impression of seal is at Ex 39. The remaining two parts of the sample food article were sent to the Local Health Authority as required under the law The Public Analyst in his report indicated that the food article in question contained webs and was not in conformity with the standard laid down in Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (herein after referred as 'the Rules' for short) and therefore, the Food Inspector obtained permission from the Local Health Authority for instituting the prosecution against the accused. On 27.11.1987 the consent came to be accorded for lodging the prosecution, which is produced at Ex.48. The complaint was thus lodged on 29 March, 1988.

(3.) After instituting the complaint, the Local Health Authority issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused informing him that the remaining samples could be tested at the end of Central Food Laboratory as required under the law and that he can move an application to the court within 10 days from the receipt of the notice. Along with the notice, the report of the Public Analyst was also sent to the accused as stipulated under law. The accused availed an opportunity of having tested the samples food article at Central Food Laboratory at Gaziyabad. The report of the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziyabad is produced at Ex..53, which also indicates the presence of 6 dead insects, 4 live insects and 8 insect webs in the sample. The sample seems to have been examined on 10.5.1988. After recording the plea of denial, the trial Court proceeded further. The trial Court has after discussing the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the case beyond doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted and acquitted the accused accordingly. The order of acquittal dated 27 March, 1996 is impugned in the present appeal