STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RANCHHOD BHULA RABARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals-one by the State and the other by the private complainant-are against the acquittal of respondent Ranchhod Bhula Rabari who was prosecuted under section 16(1)(a) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two grounds given for acquittal by the learned Magistrate are (1) that the sanction is improper and (2) that the Public Analyst who sent his report has not himself analysed the sample sent to him. On other points he finds in favour of the prosecution. Regarding the first point section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides as follows:

(2.) Now in this particular case the Municipality has authorised the Chief Officer under sec. 20 of the said Act. The Chief Officer has asked the Food Inspector to file a complaint against respondent Ranchhod Dhula Rabari and the Chief Officer is a person who can give his written consent under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because he is authorised by the local authority. The prosecution was therefore perfectly valid as it was with the consent of the Chief Officer.

(3.) The second argument is that the Public Analyst has not himself analysed the sample sent to him for analysis which is the subject matter of the report. Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as follows:-