STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURESHKUMAR MOHANLAL TRILOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the leave for filing appeal is yet to be accorded and the appeal is awaiting its admission. It is submitted that looking to the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, leave itself does not deserve to be granted. Shri. Patel, learned app submits that the impugned judgment and order in appeal be heard on merits and he produced on record the relevant papers of Criminal case no. 119 of 2000. The request of the counsel is accepted.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing of this leave to appeal and the appeal deserves to be set out as under.

(3.) THE original complainant and Food Inspector while discharging his duties under Food and Drugs Controller at Godhra on 11/9/1991 at 13. 00 hrs visited the firm of accused no. 1 and 2 which was the firm of accused no. 2 and run in the style and title of Bhagwandas Mohanlal. The accused no. 1 was present during the visit of the complainant. The complainant Food inspector issued notice under Rule 12 in Form -6, notifying his intention to collect the food article for analysis and purchased turmeric powder produced by Hirapur Vibhag Mahila Laghu Udyog Sahkari Mandali, Hirapur [herein after referred to as the 'mandali' for brevity] in a sealed pack condition. The polythene bag containing 200 grams of turmeric powder indicating that it was produced by the Mandali at the cost of Rs. 5. 00 was produced. Same was sealed in accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules. Appropriate seal of Local Health Authority, Serial number etc. were affixed and one part of the sample food article was sent to the Public Analyst, remaining two parts were sent to Local Health Authority as per provisions of the Act. In the report of Public Analyst it was opined that the food article in question was adulterated on account of presence of starch. The food Inspector prepared necessary papers for obtaining sanction to lodge complaint against the accused and after obtaining sanction lodged the complaint before the competent court against all the accused, that is the vendor- accused no. 1, owner of the firm accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 to 15 i. e. Manager and organizers of the Mandali responsible for manufacturing the food sample of turmeric powder. The complaint was registered as criminal case No. 1078 of 1993. Thereafter the case was transferred and it was re-numbered as Criminal case No. 119 of 2000 to the court of learned jmfc, who passed original order of conviction against accused no. 1 and 2. The notice under section 13 (2) has been issued to all the accused informing them about their right to request the court for sending remaining food sample to Central Food Laboratory. It appears from the record, the request accordingly was made and it was accepted and therefore part of the remaining food sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory which has also issued its report after examining the sample and opined that the food sample was adulterated on account of existence of starch. The summons were issued, trial was conducted. After recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses the statements of the accused under section 313 came to be recorded, wherein they have denied case of the prosecution. The trial court has convicted the original accused no. 1 and 2 for commission of offence under section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'pfa Act' for brevity); whereas the remaining accused from 3 to 15 were acquitted as the prosecution could not prove the case against remaining accused. The trial court after convicting accused no. 1 and 2 imposed punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs. 2,500. 00, and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. This order of conviction and imposing sentence dated 8/3/2001 was challenged by the accused no. l and 2 under section 374 (3) of the Code before the sessions Court, Panchmahal at Godhra by way of Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2001. The Sessions Court, Godhra vide its order dated 29/1/2005 acquitted the original accused no. 1 and 2 of the charge of commission of offence under sections 7 and 16 of the PFA Act and quashed and set aside the order of conviction impugned before him passed by learned JMFC, on 8/3/2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of acquittal the state has preferred the present appeal under section 378 of the Code and sought leave to maintain the appeal.