STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. YUNUSBHAI HESENBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State under sec. 378 of CrPC against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1999 rendered in Criminal Case No. 156 of 1993 by the learned J.M.F.C., Chikhali. The said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence punishable under sec. 7 and 16 of the Food Adulteration Act ( for short "PFA Act") in the Court of JMFC, Chikhali.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector ori. Complainant JB Gohil visited the shop of present respondent on 15.7.1992, situated near Old Bus Stand road, Chikhali and purchased 700 ml orange sharbat and the sample was seized and sealed by the Food Inspector and thereafter the same was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Upon receipt of the report, it was found that the sample was adulterated and, therefore, the complaint was filed against the present respondent and, thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent accused and he came to be tried. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, at the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment and order acquitted the respondent accused.

(3.) Learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has contended that the judgment and order acquitting the respondent is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper and it is against the established principle of law. She has also contended that learned trial judge has failed to appreciate the report of the public analyst who is an expert and he has given the said report under the provisions of PFA Act and Rules. She has contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate the report of the public analyst. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence on record and contended that the said sample was taken in the presence of panch and all the materials are produced on record and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence and the judgment and order of the trial court is not proper and the trial court has wrongly acquitted the present respondent accused.