STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJESHKUMAR PARSHOTAMDAS DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant, State of Gujarat, against the Judgment and order dated 17.07.2014 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No.564 of 2001. The said case was registered against the respondentsaccused for the offence punishable under Sections2(1a),(m) for the breach of Sections 7(i) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, complainantChandrakant Pragjibhai Gohil, Food Inspector, Surendrangar registered complaint against the accused persons alongwith original accused Nos.3 and 4. However, inspite of best effort, summons could not be served to original accused Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, vide application at Exh.5, the complainant prayed for deletion from the complaint qua them. The same was granted by the trial Court and case was proceeded against present respondentsaccused. Respondent No.1accused was owner of seller firm and respondent No.2accused was owner of supplier firm and deleted accused Nos.3 and 4 were manufacturers. As per the contents of the complaint, on 24.07.1997, Mr. S.H. Pandya, Food Inspector visited the place of respondent No.1accused and purchased 1 kg. 'Amul Brad Taza Iodised' Salt on payment of Rs.2/, as per the provision of the Act and the Rules. Then, the sample was seized and sealed and the same was divided in three parts and 330 gram sample was taken in three bottle. Thereafter, the said sample was declared as adulterated. So, Assistant Commissioner was informed vide letter dated 09.09.1997 and through public analyst report of Rajkot No.Q3/255/97 dated 30.08.1997, declared adulterated sample. From bare perusal of the report, it was found that there should be minimum 16 PPM iodine content in the sample, whereas, it was 4.22 PPM. So, as per the provision of Section2(1a)(m), the sample was found adulterated so, there was a breach of Section 7(i) and Section16 of the PFA Act and therefore, the complaint was filed by the complaint against the respondentsaccused. Then, sanction was given and therefore, summons was issued against the respondentsaccused. Originally, the complainant joined original accused Nos.3 and 4, but due to nonservice of the summons, both the accused were deleted vide application Exh.5 of the complainant. Then chargesheet was filed against the respondentsaccused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surendrangar for the offence punishable under Sections2(1a),(m) for the breach of Sections7(i) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.564 of 2001.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed and readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under SectionsSections2(1a),(m) for the breach of Sections7(i) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Then, plea vide Exh.124 and 125 was recorded and respondentsaccused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.