STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BIMALKUMAR JAYANTILAL DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 (1)(3) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 12.2.1999, rendered in Criminal Case No.1646 of 1997 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. The said Criminal case was registered against the present respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 7(iv) and 16(1)(A)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.

(2.) According to the prosecution case the present respondent is the owner of shop, named, "Sainath Stores, Opp. Railway Station, Nr. Sarvajanik School, Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. The complainant Yogeshchandra Madhusudan Soni, Food Inspector, filed the complaint against the present respondent alleging that during the survey it was found that the respondent was selling "Manekchand Gutaka" in his shop, which is nearby the School. As per Notification No.PFA/1097/ 54535/I dated 30.9.1997, the sale of Manekchand Gutaka is prohibited near the School. By selling such prohibited articles like "Manekchand Gutaka" the respondent has committed a breach under the provision of Section 7(iv) of the PFA Act. Sample was seized and it was sent to the Expert at Baroda and then the complainant obtained report from the Public Analyst, Vadodara. Thereafter, complainant obtained permission to file complaint and after obtaining the permission the complaint has been filed against the present respondent under the provision of PFA Act.

(3.) On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the trial was conducted, evidence was recorded and the statement of the respondent accused, u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent accused.