P C TRIVEDI Vs. RASIKBHAI MASUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, through its Food Inspector Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the code for brevity), challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9/2/1990 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad, acquitting the accused / respondent of the charge of commission of offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 in Criminal Case No. 368 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the pfa Act for brevity ). This Court (Coram: K. J. Vaidya, J) granted special leave and admitted the appeal on 31/1/1991.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be st out as under:

(3.) SHRI. Nagarkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sanction can not be said to be erroneous only on account of erroneous finding that proper papers were submitted before the competent authority. Shri. Nagarkar has submitted that the trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion that sanction was not validly issued. The trial court's reasoning that in the sanction letter it does not contain words that it was issued in the interest of public but the same was not to be treated as invalid. The trial court has erroneously came to the conclusion that sanction was vague and therefore same was defective. Shri. Nagarkar has submitted that the finding of the trial court is otherwise also erroneous and therefore, same deserves to be quashed and set aside as the adulteration in sample food article is clearly mentioned by the Public Analyst in the report. Therefore the accused deserved to be convicted and punished in accordance with law.