HARSHADKUMAR SOMABHAI MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision application, which is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has challenged the order dated 29.02.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No.870 of 1993 as well as the order dated 15.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2000.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are as under: 2.1. As per the case of the prosecution, on 06.10.1993, the Food Inspector visited the premises of the applicant - accused and turmeric powder was purchased by him. Thereafter, he had followed the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). One of the samples was sent to the concerned laboratory for its analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report on 22nd October 1993. As per the said report, 12.92% of total ash was found in the said sample. Permissible limit is maximum 9%. Therefore, the sample was not as per the prescribed standard. The respondent No.2 - Food Inspector, therefore, obtained the consent of the competent authority for filing the complaint against the applicant - accused. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) by the respondent No.2 - complainant. The complainant was examined at Exh.31. The complainant has also examined Bharatchandra Ramanlal Desai vide Exh.45. Prosecution has also produced documentary evidence on record including the report given by the Public Analyst Exh.23. On the basis of the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record, learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 29.02.2000 convicted the applicant - accused for the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, 30 days Simple Imprisonment was ordered. The applicant - accused challenged the said order before the Appellate Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2000. The Appellate Court also by impugned order dated 15.02.2005 confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and thereby dismissed the appeal. Applicant has, therefore, approached before this Court by filing this revision application.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. B.N.Limbachia appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr. N.J.Shah for respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat. Though served, respondent No.2 - original complainant has not filed appearance. Matter is pending since 2005 and therefore the same is taken up for hearing.