STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARIBHAI MOTICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the States appeal against the respondent who was convicted of an offence under sec. 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate 8 Court Ahmedabad but whose conviction had come to be set aside by the City Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1974. The respondent had been sentenced to undergo S. 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/in default to undergo further S. I. for three months by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The case as made out against the respondent by the Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was that on 24th April 1974 the respondent had sold 12 cups of prepared tea weighing 14 mililitres which substance was found to have contained saccharine and orange II coal tar dye. As per the prescribed standards this food was adulterated and so he was prosecuted by the Food Inspector and as set out above he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate but came to be acquitted by the learned City Sessions Judge. The only point which found favour with the learned City Sessions Judge was that the original cornplainant who claimed to be the Food Inspector on the relevant date of taking of the sample was not a Food Inspector as he did not fall within the qualifications of Food Inspector as laid down in Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the proviso appended to the Rule 8 was not attracted.

(3.) Mr. G. T. Nanavati the learned Advocate appearing for the State urged that in view of the admitted facts the learned City Sessions Judge had committed an error in interpreting the proviso Rule 8 and in that view of the matter he urged that there judgment of the Sessions Court be set aside and the case be remanded to that Court for disposal in accordance with law.