STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HANIFBHAI V NEDARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banaskantha at Himatnagar on 14th September 1992 in Criminal Case No. 685 of 1991 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondents herein of the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 herein has his grocery shop situated at Mehtapura, Opposite Bus Stand in Himatnagar. He was inter alia selling turmeric powder in sealed packets. One Yogeshchandra Madhusudan Soni (the complainant for convenience) was appointed as the Food Inspector for the local limits of Himatnagar. He visited the shop of respondent No. 1 herein on 18th December 1990 at about 11-45 a.m. with his helper. He got one packet of turmeric powder contained in a plastic bag broken open and purchased from it 450 gms. thereof. The sample was divided in three equal parts. After complying with the necessary formalities, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Rajkot for its analysis and two samples were sent to the local health authority at Gandhinagar by registered post. This was done in accordance with the relevant rules framed under the Act. The Public Analyst at Rajkot appears to have analysed the sample on 1st January 1991 and has prepared his report thereof on 15th January 1991. It was found to be containing both living and dead insects about more than fifty in number. Its copy is at Exh. 30 on the record of the trial Court. It may be mentioned at this stage that, in the course of purchasing sample from respondent No. 1 herein, it was disclosed that the article of food was purchased from respondent No. 2 on 6th July 1990 under a bill and the necessary information regarding packing of the packet was found in the plastic bag itself. A copy of the bill of purchase is at Exh. 13 on the record of the trial Court. Thereupon, the necessary particulars under Sec. 14-A of the Act were gathered by the complainant. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst at Rajkot, the complainant moved the authority for the purposes of Sec. 20 of the Act and, by the order passed on 21st March 1991, the complainant was required to launch prosecution against the respondents herein. Its copy is at Exh. 31 on the record of the trial Court. Thereafter, the complainant filed his complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banaskantha at Himatnagar on 8th April 1991. Thereafter, the complainant gave the required notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act to both the respondents herein on 18th April 1991. The complaint filed by the complainant came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 685 of 1991. The charge against the respondents as accused was framed on 18th June 1992 at Exh. 45 on the record of the trial Court charging them with the offence punishable under Sec. 16(1-A)(i) of the Act. Neither respondent-accused pleaded guilty to the charge. They were thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and after recording the further statement of each accused and after hearing the arguments, by his judgment and order passed on 14th September 1992 in Criminal Case No. 685 of 1991, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banaskantha at Himatnagar acquitted both the respondents herein of the charge levelled against them. That aggrieved the prosecution agency. It has, therefore, by leave of this Court invoked its appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 378 of the Code for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Mehta for the appellant - State has taken me through the entire evidence on record in support of his submission that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be sustained in law. He has further submitted that the learned trial Magistrate ought to have held that the prosecution could bring the guilt home to the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.