STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THARKARSIBHAI PRABHUDASBHAI BHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Gujarat has preferred this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying condonation of 43 days delay in preferring criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2003 challenging the order of acquittal dated 31/12/2002 passed by the learned JMFC, Kodinar in criminal Case No. 519 of 1994 acquitting the opponent-original accused of charge of commission of offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.)

(2.) SHRI Patel, learned Addl. P. P. was heard at length and he was permitted to address this Court on the merits of the appeal also. Shri Patel has produced copies of the relevant papers pertaining to Criminal case No. 519 of 1994 and addressed this court on merit at length in support of his submission for condoning the delay.

(3.) THE delay appears to have occurred mainly on account of belated application for certified copy. It is set out in para-2 of the application that the order of acquittal was passed on 31/12/2002 and the certified copy itself was applied for only on 28/2/2003. It was ready for delivery on 28/2/2003 itself and it was obtained on that very day. Thereafter, the papers were processed at various stages and ultimately, after obtaining appropriate approval for filing appeal from the competent authority, the appeal was filed challenging the order of acquittal dated 31/12/2002 made by the learned JMFC, kodinar in Criminal Case No. 519 of 1994. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, the delay could have been condoned. However, looking to the order of acquittal impugned in this appeal and the clear violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. It may be noted delay is not condoned only on account of the fact that appeal is bereft of any merits so as to call for any interference from this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.