NARESH NARUBHA RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.292 of 1995, whereby the applicant-original accused in sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- is imposed or to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment in default as well as the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Rajkot dated 02.11.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed.

(2.) The applicant-original accused was a dealer in food articles. The Food Inspector collected samples of 'Chana Dal' on 09.01.1995 from his shop. The same was sent for analysis to the laboratory. The report reveals that the sample is 'misbranded' as there was no batch no. or any label containing batch no. over any of the packets that were collected during the visit. Therefore, after obtaining consent from the Health Authority, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector initially against two accused, i.e. applicant-original accused and his father before the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the breach of Rule 32(e) and 32(f) of the Rules. The trial commenced and the charge was framed below Exh.65. Both the accused did not plead guilty and therefore, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined following witnesses:

(3.) The documentary evidence has also been produced by the prosecution including the report of Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate, vide its judgment and order dated 16.04.2003, has acquitted co-accused-Narubha Bahadursinh Rathod whereas present accused has been convicted for the breach of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and for breach of Rule 32(e) of the Rules and the sentence is imposed. After elaborately discussing the evidence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the samples of 'Chana Dal' were collected in presence of applicant. No discrepancy is found from the oral as well as documentary evidence about collection of samples. The learned Magistrate has believed the report of the laboratory that it is misbranded. The competent court has granted consent to prosecute and the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant-original accused.