STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KARAMCHAND LALCHAND KOTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh @ Veraval in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2001, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.4.2001 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge J.D., Veraval in Criminal Case No. 1543/1994 and accused has been acquitted of the charges under sec. 7(1) and 7(5) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.3.1994 the Food Inspector has visited the shop of respondents -accused, and has taken the sample of curd. Thereafter, he purchased the same and paid the price, cash memo was taken and after following the necessary procedure, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhuj for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated. On these facts, the complaint was filed before the Court, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1543/1994 against the respondent. At the time of trial, evidence was led before the trial Court. The documents were produced and oral evidence of the witnesses were also recorded by the trial Court and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of conviction and sentence, which was challenged by the respondent by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh @ Veraval, which came to be allowed, as aforesaid, which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) IT was contended by learned APP Ms Shah for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. She has also argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses. She has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking the sample and the contents of Form No. 6 etc are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge requires to be quashed and set aside.