STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RATILAL ASHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order of acquittal dated 25. 4. 1996 passed by learned JMFC, borsad in Criminal Case No. 1681 of 1989, acquitting the respondent of the charge of commission of offence punishable under section 2 (ix) (N), 7 (2) and 16 (1) (A) (1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This Court (Coram: A. N. Divecha) granted leave and admitted the appeal on 17. 1. 1997, which has now come up for final disposal today.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be set out as under.

(3.) LEARNED APP Shri. Patel has submitted that the order of the trial court being erroneous and patently illegal the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. Shri Patel has submitted that the trial court erroneously held that there was failure on the part of the prosecution in establishing due compliance with mandatory provisions of the rules. Shri. Patel has submitted that testimony of the Food Inspector if read closely would go to show that the mandatory provision of the PFA Rules have scrupulously been complied with by the Food Inspector. The trial court's finding in respect of non-compliance with provision of Rule 14 therefore being erroneous same deserved to be reversed. Shri Patel has submitted that the finding of the trial court that the sanction accorded under Section 20 of PFA Act was not valid and it was accorded by the officer who was merely holding charge of the post is erroneous. Shri Patel has submitted that the authority and order of sanction for lodging prosecution which is produced at exhibit 58 would clearly show that the officer was competent to accord sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act. The officer's admission in his cross-examination that he was actually working as Senior Drug Inspector and at the time of incident he was holding in-charge of the post in itself cannot be said to be proof that he was not competent to accord sanction. Shri Patel has submitted that the vessels employed namely glass bottles for collecting and sealing the sample were also cleaned in compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules. Therefore the findings of the trial court on this count also required to be reversed. The food article being adulterated as per the opinion of the Public Analyst in its report the accused could not have been acquitted. The adulteration is affecting the entire society and therefor the accused be punished in accordance with law.