SATISH KUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr Chinmay gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. M. A. Patel, learned APP for the respondent State.

(2.) THE present petitioner has preferred this revision application for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in criminal Revision Application No. 154 of 2004 dated 5. 9. 2006. The petitioner has further prayed to restore the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ahmedabad dated 9. 4. 2004 passed in criminal Case No. 24/2003 and further to direct operation of the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner is doing business of manufacturing, storing and selling mango ras. The food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner on 23. 4. 2003. He took sample of 1 kg. Mango shake from the shop and sent for analysis to Public Analyst and on analyzing it was found that there was presence of sunset Yellow and Tartrazine Yellow synthetic colour. The Public Analyst gave opinion that the said sample is adulterated and he came to the conclusion that the sample does not comply with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The said Food Inspector lodged complaint on 4. 9. 2003 against the petitioner and the said complaint was registered as Criminal Case no. 24/2003 before the learned Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad. After hearing, the petitioner was discharged from offence punishable under Section 13 (3) of the Food Adulteration Act by the learned metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 9. 4. 2004 passed below application Exh. 12 in criminal Case No. 24/2003. The State has, against the said order, preferred Revision application before the Additional City Sessions Judge being Criminal Revision Application No. 154 of 2004. The learned Additional sessions Judge, has allowed the saidrevision application on 5. 9. 2006 and quashed and set aside the order dated 9. 4. 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6. Against the said order the present petitioner original accused has preferred this revision application.