K A MEHTA FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. PAKEAN DININGHALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD ld. Counsel Mr. R. R. Marshal for the applicant-original complainant Mr. K. A. Mehta, Food Inspector, ld. Counsel mr. Modi for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 -original accused and Ms. Darshana pandit, Ld. APP for respondent No. 4 State.

(2.) BY this application under section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. , the applicant food Inspector has sought leave to appeal with a view to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22. 08. 2006 passed by ld. Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad in Criminal case No. 41/2004. By the impugned judgment, the Id. Trial Judge acquitted the accused from the charges of the offence punishable under section 16a (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act for short ). The ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant has taken me through various grounds mentioned in the memo of the leave to appeal application as well as in memo of the appeal and has also taken through the judgment under challenge. From the bunch of documents available with the ld. Counsel mr. Marshal, he has taken me through the relevant part of oral as well as documentary evidence which was mainly relied on by the ld. Trial Judge as also the oral version of the complainant who has drawn the sample from the business premises of the accused.

(3.) IT is true that as the report of Public Analyst was against the accused, the accused had opted to send the second sample for reanalysis to Central Food Laboratory and accordingly it was sent to cfl. The ld. Trial Judge has rightly considered that the report of cfl would supersede the report of the Public Analyst and even if it is possible to point out certain conflicts in both the reports, that would not help the accused. However, the ld. Trial Judge decided to acquit the respondents accused observing that the sample of the curd taken by the complainant on 20. 12. 2003 at about 12. 30 with the help of his peon Mr. Punjalal Mevada, was not a representative sample which is requirement of law. So, the accused were entitled to take plea that the sample analyzed by both the laboratory experts was not representing the curd which was kept either for sale or for use as a food article in the business premises run by the accused persons in the name and style of Pakvan Dining Hall situated opposite V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad.