HARKANT L SHUKLA Vs. MULAJI KARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD ld. Counsel Mr. RC Kakkad for the petitioner- original complainant. The present application for leave to appeal is preferred by the petitioner -Chief Officer of Khambhalia Municipality, challenging the order of acquittal recorded by ld. JMFC, Khambhalia in Criminal Complaint no. 1112 of 1988 whereby respondent No. 1 accused has been acquitted from the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act)

(2.) THE ld. JMFC has recorded a finding of acquittal on the following grounds; viz (i) sample collected by the Food Inspector was not in strict compliance of the statutory provisions of the Rules framed under the PFA act, and (ii) the complainant Food Inspector was not competent and trained food Inspector required to be appointed in compliance with Rule 8 of the rules framed under PFA Act and, therefore, drawing of sample by him and act of filing of the complaint by him, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. In support of the reasons assigned by the ld. JMFC for acquitting the accused, ld. JMFC placed reliance on the following decisions viz (i) 1993 (2)FAC 238, (ii) 1994 (1) FAC 185 and (iii) 1987 (1) FAC 44. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions, being squarely applicable to the facts of the present court. ld. JMFC placing reliance on the said decisions, acquitted the accused.

(3.) IT was not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution that the container wherein the sample of the food article was collected, was at the relevant time, dry and clear container. On the contrary, it emerges from record that the containers are kept in the office of Municipality formerly cleaned by the Sanitary Inspector and those containers are used for drawing sample. This is nothing but a hazy compliance and, therefore, it would be difficult for the Court to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the ld. JMFC.