STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MEHBUB ABDULGANI KATHKI

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 30th May, 1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra in Criminal Case No. 367 of 1994 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1)(A)(B) (J)(14), 7(1)(3)(5) and 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'.) This Court (Coram: A.N. Divecha, J) has granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 7/11/1996.

(2.) The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector on 24/6/1992 at about 11.00 a.m., visited the shop of the accused. After introducing himself as such, he declared the intention of collecting Sweet Betel Nut pieces known in vernacular as Meethi Supari for analysis. In presence of panch witness Abdul Razak Chota the complainant purchased 3 packets of 250 grams each meethi supari from the accused. The intimation / notice under Rule 12 in Form-VI was issued and office copy thereof bears the signature of the vendor. The same is produced at exhibit-14. The complainant made payment of Rs.22=50 as price for purchasing the sample food article. The receipt is at exhibit-17. The 3 packets were wrapped in a brown paper and sealed properly as required under th law. The seal contained the duly signed slip issued by the office. The entire proceedings of collecting sample was done in presence of panch witness and the panchnama was drawn. The panchnama contains signature of panch which was at mark-A. The Food Inspector thereafter took the food sample to the office and prepared memorandum in Form-VII, one sample of food sample article was sent to the Public Analyst, Baroda and the specimen copy of seal and memorandum was also separately sent to the Public Analyst. The remaining 2 sample food articles were sent to Local Health Authority at Nadiad. The receipt of the sample by the Local Health Authority was acknowledged, the said acknowledgment card is produced at exhibit-19. The receipt of the sample by Local Health Authority was acknowledged and the acknowledgment card is produced at exhibit-20. As the sample food article was not found in conformity with the standards laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Rules), the necessary papers with the report of the Public Analyst was submitted to the Local Health Authority for obtaining appropriate consent. The forwarding letter and the consent have been produced at exhibit-26 and 27 respectively. The complaint came to be lodged thereafter. The notice under section 13(2) is said to have been issued to the accused by registered post A.D. The postal acknowledgment dues have been produced at exhibit-28 and 29. The trial court after recording plea of the accused proceeded further in the matter and framed two issues, namely; (1) whether he prosecution proves beyond doubt that the accused have committed offence under section 2(1)(A)(B)(J)(14); and under section 7(1)(3)(5); and 16 (1) of the Act.; (2) what order

(3.) The first issue is answered in the negative, and the second issue as per his order. After discussing the evidence at length the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the case beyond doubt and therefore, acquitted the accused vide its order dated 30/5/1996. The said order is impugned in the present appeal.