STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL KALPESH KUMAR MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah ld. Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner-State has preferred the present revision application under sec. 397 read with sec. 401 of Crpc to quash and set aside the order passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan in Criminal Case No. 1499/2002 on 4. 11. 2004 below ex. 31. It is submitted that the Criminal Case no, 1499/2002 was filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan on the strength of the complaint filed by Food Inspector L. K. Patel against the respondents for the breach of sec. 7 (1), 7 (2) as well as 7 (5) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and violation of the rules 49 (28) and 50 framed thereunder.

(3.) AS per the case of the prosecution, the complainant visited the office of Joy Minerals at about 11. 00 O'clock in the presence of panch witnesses and the respondents no. 1 on behalf of respondent no. 7 Joy Minerals, were present. They were dealing with the mineral water and on inquiry, the complainant came to know that they were producing and selling drinking water in the name and style of Joy Packaged Drinking Water. As per the prosecution case, after serving the notice, the complainant purchased 33 pouches of Joy Packaged Drinking Water at the cost of 30 paise per pouch and had paid Rs. 9. 90 paise for the same. The sample of the packaged drinking water was sent to Public Analyst for the purpose of having complete analysis. On the basis of the report of Public Analyst, it was found that the sample of drinking water was not in conformity with the standard and provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the rule 49 (28) of the Rules framed thereunder. The complainant obtained necessary sanction and registered the complaint against the respondents before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan. The respondents, thereafter vide ex. 31 preferred an application for discharge before the ld. Judge on 10. 11. 2003. The Ld. Judge, vide order dated 4. 11. 2004 allowed the application preferred by the respondents and discharged them for the offence punishable under sec. 7 (1) (2) and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as Rule 49 (28) of the Rules framed thereunder. The State being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the present revision application.