STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RATHOD HIRALAL DOLAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7/2/2004 passed by learned Jt. JMFC, Kapadwanj in Criminal Case No. 1662 of 1995, acquitting the accused/ respondent of the charges under Section 2 (1 a) (a) (b) (m) and 2 (ix) (d) read with Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'pfa Act' ).

(2.) THE facts in short deserve to be narrated as under:-The original complainant Food Inspector while discharging his duties as such in Kheda district on 11/7/1994 visited the store of the accused run in the style and title Kamlesh Kirana Stores, Halim shopping Centre, Kapadwanj in the company of panch witness. After gathering primary information about the store and after introducing himself as Food Inspector and after notifying his intention of collecting the food sample, purchased 450 grams of black pepper out of about 6. 00 kgs lying in the shop. The requisite notice in Form-6 under Rule 12 came to be issued. The office copy thereof is at exhibit-33 on record which bears signature of the panch witness and the accused. The sample food article was divided into 3 parts and collected in odourless clean glass bottle. The bottles were sealed in accordance with law and necessary serial number of Local Health Authority was affixed thereon. The entire procedure of collecting sample, stirring and sealing it was done in presence of panch witness and panchnama was also drawn. One sample out of 3 collected was sent to Public Analyst, Rajkot for analysis. Necessary memorandum in Form No. 7 was filled and impression of seal used for sealing the sample was also sent separately to the Public Analyst. The remaining 2 parts of sample food article were sent to Local Health Authority as required under law. The sample food article was found to be adulterated as it was not in conformity with the provisions of Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Rules ). The Public Analyst opined the same to be adulterated and sent his report. The report and other papers were submitted to Local Health authority for obtaining necessary sanction under Section 20 of the pfa Act for lodging prosecution. The competent authority issued its sanction for lodging prosecution against the vendor. Upon the sanction being accorded the complaint came to be filed on 12/9/1995. The Local Health Authority informed the accused about his right to have the sample food article further tested in Central Food laboratory as per Section 13 (2)of the Act. It seems that the said liberty was availed and sample food article was sent to Central food Laboratory for analysis. On receipt of report of Central Food laboratory characterising the food article to be adulterated on account of presence of mineral oil, the court framed charge and after recording plea of denial, proceeded with the trial. The trial court has come to the conclusion that as the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond doubt the accused was not guilty and, therefore, recorded acquittal of the accused vide order dated 7/2/2004 which is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) THE State has preferred the appeal challenging the impugned order of acquittal. This Court [coram: Mr. Justice D. N. Patel] had passed the following order :-