STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARUMAL RATUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 challenging acquittal order dated 26th February, 2004 passed by the j. M. F. C. , Maliya-Hatina, in Criminal Case No. 33 of 1988, acquitting the accused present respondents from the offences under sections 7 (1) (2), 16-1 (A) (B) r. w. Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Actfor short ). The facts in brief deserves to be set out as under.

(2.) SHRI H. S. Pandya, the Food Inspector, visited the premises of the accused No. 1 at 14. 30 hours and bought 600 gms of Chilly Powder from the vendor. A notice in Form No. 6 was issued intimating the vendor that the sample was taken for analysis. The Food Inspector made payment of rs. 8. 40/- for 600 gms of Chilly Powder. The receipt for payment was received from the accused No. l. The Chilly Powder, thereafter, was divided into three parts and it was collected in a transparent glass bottles and the glass bottles were sealed in accordance with law. The sealing and affixing of labels, etc. , was done in the presence of panch and panchnama was drawn. On the next date, i. e. on 24th December, 1986, one part, out of the three parts of samples, was put in a brown paper bag and the bag was also sealed and the memorandum in form No. 7 was prepared and the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhuj. The specimen seal impression was sent by the Registered Post A. D. along with memorandum in Form No. 7. The remaining two parts of the sample food article were also appropriately sealed and sent to the Local Health authority, Junagadh, and obtained receipt thereof. Shri Pandya, Food inspector, who collected the sample, received report for sample No. 53/86 through the Local Health Authority and Assistant Commissioner, Bhuj, dated 28th January, 1987. The said report contained an opinion that as the sample food article was not in conformity with the standards laid down by the PFA Rules it was declared to be adulterated. The report says that the sample food article contained non-permitted oil soluble coltar colour. The necessary permission/sanction was requested for lodging the prosecution from the concerned authority and on receipt thereof, the prosecution was lodged. After the complaint came to be filed, the requisite notice under Section 13 (2) came to be issued to the accused informing them that they have right to apply for examination of the sample at the central Food Laboratory. As it is recorded by the trial Court, the accused applied through Exh. 2 application for having the sample food article tested at Central Food Laboratory. However, the same was not pressed by the advocate of the accused Nos. 2 to 5. The plea of denial was recorded at Exh. 44 and the trial had commenced. It appears from the record, the Exh. 50 and Exh. 53 applications on behalf of the accused nos. 1 to 5 were filed for discharge, which came to be rejected by the court. The prosecution adduced evidences in support of the case. The notification in respect of appointment of the complainant is at Exh. 100. The deposition of complainant Food Inspector, Shri Christan, is at Exh. 99. The Exh. 101 is the permission given to Shri Pandya for lodging the prosecution. However, on his transfer, that was cancelled and an order was issued. Exh. 133 is the sanction issued by the Local Health Authority to the original complainant for filing the complaint. The Notices under section 13 (2) have been produced at Exh. 136 to Exh. 141. The Postal acknowledgement Receipt are produced at Exh. 142 to 148. The deposition of Shri H. S. Pandya, Food Inspector, who had collected the sample food article is recorded at Exh. 154. The Form No. 6, Notice, is at Exh. 156. The receipt of payment for purchasing the food article is at Exh. 157. The logo of Agmark is at Exh. 158. The Sample Label Seal of Ram Spices corporation is at Exh. 159. The authority of Agmark label is at Exh. 160 and the bill showing that the accused had purchased the Chilly Powder from M/s. Gopal Trading is at Exh. 161. The report of Public Analyst is at Exh. 172 and the detail of sample is at Exh. 173. The bill issued by lalvani Kirana Bhandar, Veraval, is at Exh. 174. The letter addressed by shri Pandya to Agmark Authority is at Exh. 177. After recording the evidences, the statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, they have denied the case of the prosecution. The trial Court thereafter, based upon the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond doubt and hence, recorded order acquitting the accused of charge of committing offences under Sections 7 (1) (2), 16-1 (A) (B)r. w. Section 17 of the PFA Act vide impugned order dated 26th February, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 33 of 1988.

(3.) SHRI Patel, learned APP vehemently urged that as the sample food article in question was found to be adulterated in the report of the Public analyst, the trial Court has errorneously acquitted the accused. Shri patel has further submitted that looking to the evidence on record especially the deposition of the original Food Inspector, who has collected the sample, it can well to be said that no procedural irregularity was committed in sealing and collecting the sample food article. Shri Patel has submitted that the judgment and order of the trial Court is errorneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.