STATE Vs. KIRTIBHAI KHUSALBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri I. M. Pandya, learned Addl. P. P. for the appellant - State of Gujarat.

(2.) THE appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code for short) challenging the order of acquittal dated 25th april, 2003 passed by the learned 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, navrangpura, Ahmedabad in Criminal Sessions Case No. 956 of 1989. The State has sought leave to prefer appeal as this being an appeal against the order of acquittal. Learned Addl. P. P. Shri Pandya has taken this court through the relevant record of Criminal Sessions Case No. 956 of 1989, which was available with him, over and above the judgment of the trial court. Shri Pandya has vehemently urged that the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court for acquitting the accused was not proper and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) THE facts in brief deserves to be narrated as under: the original complainant Food Inspector, on 29th March, 1989 visited Patel Dairy Farm, Kenyug Apartment, Nr. Yoga-ashram, ahmedabad, owned by the accused/respondent. The original complainant after introducing himself as Food Inspector, collected the Cow Milk for the purpose of sending it to the Public Analyst in presence of panch witness. The sample was collected in accordance with provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and it was divided into three parts and the requisite amount of preservatives formalin was also dropped into it and the bottles were sealed in accordance with law. The labels required containing details were also pasted on the sample bottles and one part of the sample was sent to the public Analyst and remaining two parts were sent to the Local Health authority. The report of the Public Analyst dated 17. 4. 1989 indicated that the sample food article of Cow Milk was adulterated and therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction for lodging prosecution, complaint came to be filed. After filing complaint, the necessary notice under Section 13 (2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) came to be issued intimating to the accused that he has a right to have the sample tested at the Central Food Laboratory and he can make appropriate application in the Court within 10 days. The accused seems to have availed the said opportunity and requested the Court for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The Court sent the remaining parts of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for further examination and the Central Food Laboratory, in its report at Ex. 9, has also opined that as the Cow Milk sample was not in conformity with the standards laid down in the Rules, the same is adulterated. The trial Court after completion of the trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in establishing the guilt on the part of the accused and therefore, the order of acquittal was recorded acquitting the accused of the charges on 25th April, 2003. This order is impugned in the present appeal by the appellant State of Gujarat.