STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JITENDRAKUMAR MUTILAL DUBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order of acquittal dated 23-5-1996 passed by learned 2nd jt. J. M. F. C. Jamnagar, in Criminal Case No. 1421 of 1988 acquitting the accused of the charges under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). This Court granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 29-10-1996 (Coram: A. N. Divecha, J ).

(2.) THE case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant food Inspector while performing his duties as such at Jamnagar, visited the business premises of the accused situated at 104, Hapa Udyognagar on 18-2-1988. The business was run in the name and style of Jitendrakumar muktilal Gandhi And Company. Accused no. 4 was the firm engaged in producing various spices like turmeric, chili powder etc. The Food inspector complainant called one Shri. Gadhvi Rukaddhan Shivdan as panch witness and in his presence inquired of the person namely Sari. Jitendrakumar Muktilal Dubai who was present in the shop as to who was the owner of the premises and what was the constitution of the firm. He was informed that the said concern is a partnership firm. After introducing himself as Food Inspector he purchased sample of turmeric powder of 'hathi Brand' from the sealed pack bag containing Agmark seal and indicating Punja Gandhi and Company as the packing place. Food inspector purchased 450 gram of turmeric powder from the sealed bag containing total 10 kgs of turmeric powder. The Food Inspector issued notice under Rule 12 Form VI indicating his intention to send said sample food article for analysis. The sample food article of turmeric powder, thereafter, was divided into three equal parts and collected in clean, dried, odorless, transparent glass bottles. The glass bottles were sealed with appropriate seal and before sealing the same, air tight cork was applied so as to prevent any outside element getting into it. The appropriate labels were affixed on the bottles containing necessary details as required under the law. Panchnama was drawn of the incident of collecting the sample. The receipt for payment of Rs. 6. 30 paid for the sample food article purchased was obtained. The said receipt is at exhibit-40.

(3.) ON 19-2-1988 the Food Inspector in his office prepared the requisite memorandum to accompany the sample food bottles and after applying the requisite seal on the outer cover send the same to the respective authorities, namely one portion of the sample food article to the Public analyst and remaining sample food article to Local Health Authority as required under the law. The memorandum in Form No. VII and the specimen copy of seal used to seal the container was separately sent to the Public Analyst. The copy of the forwarding letter is produced at exhibit-43. The receipt is produced at exhibit-44. The forwarding letter where under the remaining two parts were handed over to Local Health authority is produced at exhibit-46. The receipt issued by the Public authority of acknowledging receiving the sample is produced at exhibit-47. As the sample food was not in conformity with the provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) same was found to be adulterated. The Public Analyst has indicated in his report dated 14-3-1988 that on microscopic examination it was found that the sample material was mixed with foreign starch (rice starch ). The report of Public Analyst is at exhibit-49. The Food Inspector thereafter submitted proposal to the Local Health Authority along with the report of the Public Analyst for initiating prosecution against the accused as required under the law. The concerned Local Health Authority after perusing the report and relevant papers, accorded its sanction vide letter dated 12-4-1988, copy whereof is produced at exhibit-53. After lodging the complaint, the intimation was sent to Local Health Authority. That letter is produced at exhibit-54 and acknowledgment receipt is produced at exhibit-53. The Local Health Authority issued notice under section 13 (2) to all the accused and copy of the notice and respective acknowledgment due cards indicating receiving the same by the accused are produced on record from exhibit-58 to 61. The plea of denial of charge by the accused is recorded on 20-2-1992 at exhibit-10, 11 and 12 respectively. The matter had proceeded further. The trial court has framed two issues, namely (1) whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused partnership firm and its partners have committed offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the P. F. A. Act by selling the adulterated turmeric powder to complainant, which was as per the report of Public Analyst at exhibit-49. The first issue is answered in negative, and the second as per the court's order.