STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BALRAJBHAI VATUMAL RAJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State has filed this appeal under sec. 378(1)(3) of CrPC against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 1964 of 1994 dated 19.8.1999 acquitting the respondents. The offence was registered under sec. 2(1-A)(A)(C) & (D)(M), 7(1) punishable under sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the original complainant Food Inspector, appointed as per the Gazette, was serving at Surendranagar. On 2.11.1993 at 13.15 hrs., the complainant has visited the hotel of respondent Mr. Balrajbhai Vatumal Rajpal with one helper Mr. Vaghela. At that time, respondent no. 2 was also present. Both the respondents were informed by the complainant that they came there just to verify the curd. Thereafter, they inspected the hotel and in one big fridge, there was one vessel in which curd was kept weighing about 4kg and, as per Form No. 6 they have obtained the signatures and purchased 600grams of curd for which an amount of Rs. 10/- was paid to the respondents. Thereafter, 600 grams of curd was packed in three different bottles. The bottles were clean and spoon was used and all the samples were sealed and 20 drops of preservative formalin were also added. Thereafter, on the said samples, label was affixed and thereafter seal was applied. On 3.11.1993, with memorandum Form no. 7 sample was sent to the Laboratory at Bhuj, for analysis by S.T. Parcel and FIR's mark seal impression was also sent to the Public Analyst in different cover by Registered AD post along with forwarding letter and receipt was also obtained on 3.11.1993. At the time of trial, evidence was led before the trial court. The documents were produced and oral evidence of the witnesses were also recorded by the trial court and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of acquittal which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned APP Mr. IM Pandya for the appellant-State. He has argued that the prosecution has produced sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence. The order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking sample and the contents of Form No. 6 etc. are just and proper. The curd was seized and sealed properly. The spoon was used as per rules and yet the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.