STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DOSHI CHHABILDAS SHIVLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the appellant State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated September 19, 1991, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Limdi, in Criminal Case No.755 of 1986. whereby the respondents (original accused Nos.1 to 7) have been acquitted of the charges for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) Briefly stated, the ease of the prosecution is that on September 3, 1985, at about 2:00 p.m., Mr. M.G.Nair, Food Inspector, who is the original complainant, visited the Kirana Shop (Provision Store) of the respondent No. 1, which is located in the market at Chuda, from where the said respondent was carrying on the business of selling foodgrains, pulses, Ghee, jaggery. and other food articles. The respondent No. 1 was present in his shop at the time of the visit of the complainant. After introducing himself, the complainant declared his intention of purchasing a sample of groundnut oil labelled as "City Brand Pure Groundnut Oil" for the purpose of analysis. To this end, the complainant gave a written notice to the respondent No.1 in the presence of a Panch witness Mr. Niranjan Trambaklal Gosaliya. to draw a sample of groundnut oil from the sealed tin lying in the shop of respondent No.1. The sealed tin of groundnut oil was opened in the presence of respondent No.1 and the Panch witness by the complainant und 400 grams of groundnut oil was purchased for a sum of Rs. 6.40 ps. under a bill, signed by the complainant, Panch witness and the respondent No.1. The sample of groundnut oil was then divided into three equal parts and put into three transparent, clean and dry glass bottles which were duly sealed, labelled and wrapped separately in brown paper as required by law. On the sample bottles, a slip bearing the signatures of the Food Inspector, the respondent No.1 and the Panch witness was affixed. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst together with memorandum in Form VII under intimation to the Local Health Authority whereas the remaining two sample bottles were sent to the Local Health Authority at Bhavnagar. The sample ol groundnut oil sent to the Public Analyst was analyzed and the report dated September 20. 1985, which is to be found at Ex.35, indicated that the sample was not conforming to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ("the Rules" for short). As the sample of groundnut oil purchased from the shop of respondent No.1 was found to be adulterated within the meaning of the Act, the Food Inspector had applied for written consent of the competent authority for lodging prosecution against the respondents No.1 to 7. The consent for prosecution of the above respondents was given by consent letter dated May 30, 1986, by the Assistant Director and Local (Health) Authority. Drug Control Administration, Bhavnagar Circle, that is, the competent authority, which is produced at Ex.44. In view of the according of sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector had filed the complaint against the respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Limdi. which was registered as Criminal Case No.755 of 1986.

(3.) After issuance of summonses to the accused, the learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the respondents, which is at Ex.107, and the same was read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded "not guilty" and therefore, the case came to be tried.