STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KISHORBHAI GORDHANBHAI KAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant, State of Gujarat, against the Judgment and order dated 11.09.2004 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maliya Hatina, in Criminal Case No.187 of 1995. The said case was registered against the respondents -accused for the offence punishable under Sections -16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the breach of Sections -2(i -a)(a), 2(i -a)(m), 2(ix)(d) and 7(i), 7(ii) and 7(v) of the PFA Act and Rules -29 and 5(A -05 -05 -01) of the PFA Rules.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 04.02.1995, complainant Food Inspector Shri S.A.Patel, visited the place of respondent -accused, who was found dealing with commodities. It is further the case of the prosecution that complainant Food Inspector purchased sample of 600 grams Chilly Powder (loose) from the respondent -accused on making payment of cost and sent it to Public Analyst, Vadodara for the purpose of analysis. On receipt of the report from the public analysis, the said sample was found substandard because of the fact that pink and orange coloured oil soluble coaltar colour as well as presence of characteristic debris of chilly powder were found. As a result of which, a complaint was filed against the respondent -accused for the alleged offence as stated above before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malia Hatina. Thereafter, summons was issued to respondent -accused. Then charge -sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malia Hatina, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.187 of 1995.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed and read -over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections -16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the breach of Sections -2(i -a)(a), 2(i -a)(m), 2(ix)(d) and 7(i), 7(ii) and 7(v) of the PFA Act and Rules -29 and 5(A -05 -05 -01) of the PFA Rules. Then, plea vide was recorded and respondent -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.