LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-219

STATE OF GUJRAT Vs. MANOJKUMAR DEVISANKAR SHUKLA

Decided On August 01, 2016
State Of Gujrat Appellant
V/S
Manojkumar Devisankar Shukla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08/08/2008 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Municipal Court), Surat in PFA Case No.3 of 2000 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the present respondent-accused no.1 giving benefit under Sec. 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Food Inspector, Gujarat State visited the shop of the original accused no.1 on 07/10/1999 at about 16:00 hours which was running in the name and style of "Chanda Dairy" where the original accused no.1 was selling milk and milk-made items. Thereafter, in the presence of the Panch Witness, the complainant drew sample of two pouch of 'Sumel Brand' toned milk. The said milk was manufactured by original accused no.2. Thereafter, the said samples was stored and sealed after following due procedure of law in presence of panch witnesses. The complainant also obtained signatures o panchas in the panchnama which he drew at the time of taking sample. Thereafter, he sent the samples to the public analyst, Vadodara for analysis. After the report of the public analyst, as the milk was found adulterated, the complainant obtained permission of local health authority and filed the complaint. Necessary investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the before the court of leaned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat where the case was registered as PFA Case No.3 of 2000. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

(3.) To prove the case against the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidences.