G T RAMEKRA Vs. REHMANBHAI I GHENCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Upadhyay for Shri P.G. Desai for the appellant original complainant and Shri K.C. Shah, learned Addl.P.P. for the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have been duly served.

(2.) The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.5.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 9720 of 1986 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges of having committing offence under Section 2 (1) (a) and 7 (1) with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The leave was granted and appeal was admitted by this court (Coram: B.C. Patel, J.) vide order dated 15.11.1990.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.1986 at about 9.30 AM the original complainant Shri Ramekra, who was working as Food Inspector in Vadodara Municipal Corporation, visited the shop called Rajiv Store at C/13, Rajiv Nagar, Behind Subhash Park, Harni Road, Vadodara for collecting the food sample of edible oil for analysis. At that time, respondent No 2 was present in the shop and the complainant had introduced himself to the respondent No. 2 that he was a Food Inspector and he informed him in writing in presence of panch witness that he intended to purchase edible oil of cotton seeds for analysis purpose. He accordingly, purchased 375 gms. of cotton seeds oil on payment of Rs. 7.90ps in presence of panch witness. These samples of edible oil was divided into three equal parts and they were collected in three different cleaned containers. Out of three parts of the samples, one part was sent to public analyst for analysis under the Act after sealing it properly in accordance with the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst on 20.10.1986 that edible oil in the sample did not confirm to the standard prescribed under the Rules, the complainant placed the entire file along with report of the Public Analyst dated 20.10.1986 before the Public Health Authority for obtaining sanction for instituting prosecution against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.