MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL Vs. GANESHMAL PUNAMJI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant under Section 378 of Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 10.12.2013, rendered in Criminal Case No.16747 of 2007 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 original accused for the offence under sections 7(i) and 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned trial Court is against the law and evidence on record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 17.5.2007, at about 11:30 a.m., the appellant Food Inspector accompanied by his peon visited the place of the respondent No.1 accused, who is doing the business of Mango Juice and at that time, the respondent No.1 was present. One persons namely Maganlal Chogaji Prajapati was passing through that area at that time and he was called as a panch witness and in his presence, the appellant disclosed his identity as Food Inspector and inquired about the place of business. The respondent accused replied that the container contains the Mango Juice. Therefore, the appellant paid amount in cash in present of panch and purchased 900 gms. Mango Juice and said sample was collected in a neat and clean vessel and after following due procedure of sealing, the same was sent to the Laboratory for analysis purpose and the report of public analyst reveals that the sample contains sunset and tetrazzini yellow synthetic food colour and therefore, the sample was found adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondents No.1 original accused for the alleged offence. Therefore, aforesaid Criminal Case was registered.

(3.) AT the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent accused.