MANHARLAL C. PATEL Vs. GOPALBHAI MEGHJIBHAI MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kachchh at Bhuj in Criminal Case No. 338 of 1999 whereby and where under the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(2)(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1958 ("PFA Act" for short) and Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ("PFAR" for short).

(2.) The prosecution case against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 original accused persons is that on 05.03.1998 at 16 hours, the appellant visited the shop of respondent No.1 who is dealing in Balaji wafers Chevda (Balaji) on confectionery groundnut on wholesale basis. The appellant, who is the Food Inspector, purchased three sealed polythene bags each containing 10 packets Chevda (Balaji) weighing 100 grams, they were sent for analysis. The report dated 04.04.1998 of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample of Chevda (Balaji) was misbranded under Sec. 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1958. The appellant, therefore, filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kachchh at Bhuj for the offence punishable under Sec. 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32(c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.338 of 1999. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Bhuj by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 original accused persons of the charges levelled against them essentially on the ground that the consent given by the appropriate authority for prosecution suffers from non application of mind, as it is alleged that the complaint on the pocket name of the manufacturer of the food article was not printed while the report of the analyst says that the address of the manufacturer is not mentioned to opine that the sample was misbranded.

(3.) The appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has preferred the present appeal.