M C BHATT Vs. BADURDDIN PIRBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Surat on 12th November 1987 in P.P.A. Case No. 33 of 1984 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original complainant (the concerned Food inspector) after obtaining special leave to appeal under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted opponent No. 1-accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for brief).

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. It may be sufficient to note that the complainant-Food Inspector purchased a sample of Chillies (Lai mirchi) Powder from opponent No. 1-accused in accordance with law. One part of the sample was given to opponent No. 1-accused. One part was sent by the complainant-Food Inspector to the Public Analyst at Surat. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. His report is at Exh. 34 on the record of the trial. Thereupon, the concerned Food Insepector served to opponent No. 1-accused the required notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act after instituting his complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Surat. It came to be registered as P.F.A. No. 33 of 1984. Opponent No. 1-accused appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and applied for sending the sample with him to the Central Food Laboratory for its analysis. Apropos one part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Pune. Its analysis also showed the sample to be adulterated. A copy of its report is at Exh. 5 on the record of the trial. The plea of opponent No. 1-accused was recorded on 11th August 1987. He did not plead guilty to the charge. He was thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and after recording the further statement of opponent No. 1-accused under Sec. 313 of the Code and after hearing arguments, by his judgment and order passed on 12th November, 1987 in P.F.A. No. 33 of 1984, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Surat acquitted opponent No. 1-accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Act. The complainant-Food Inspector was aggrieved thereby. He has therefore after obtaining special leave from this court invoked its appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order of accquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) Leanred Advocate Shri K.I.Shah for the appellant is not present. I am however required to proceed with the case on merits in view of the binding rulling of the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) at page 848, more particularly when the prosecution agency is represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.A. Bhukari in this appeal.