CHAMPAKLAL PARBHULAL PARIKH Vs. NATVARLAL GORDHANDAS GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order of acquittal passed by Mr. I. D. Trivedi Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Baroda acquitting the accused of the charge of having committed an offence under sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as the Act) punishable under sec. 16 of the Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused was a dealer in chilly powder and had his shop in Kalupura Brahman Falia in the City of Baroda. The Complainant Champaklal Parbhudas Parikh was the Food Inspector of Baroda Borough Municipality. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused on October 1 1964 at 8-30 A.M. and found that the accused was keeping approximately 40 kilos of chilly powder in a large box for the purpose of sale. The complainant called Champaklal Maneklal and Luhar Bhikhabhai Parsottam as panch witnesses and in their presence he gave the accused a notice in writing to the effect that he wanted to purchase 450 grams chilly powder for the purpose of analysis. Then the accused gave him 450 grams of chilly powder from an oil barrel. The complainant asked the accused to divide the chilly powder into three equal parts. The accused divided the powder into three parts and the Inspector put each part in a separate clean bottle. The bottles were then corked and slips bearing the signatures of the accused panchas and himself were affixed to the bottles. The bottles were then sealed and a label containing the name of the vendor the serial number the nature of sample and the date of collection of the sample was affixed on each of the bottles. The complainant then took back the notice from the accused and prepared a panchnama. One of the three bottles was given to the accused and the other was sent to Public Analyst along with a forwarding memo. He also sent to him in a separate cover a memo of the specimen seal impression. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst showing that the sample was adulterated and after obtaining requisite sanction the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Baroda and the accused was charged for having committed an offence under sec. 16(1)(a) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The defence of the accused was that he had not committed any offence that he was not given any notice according to law and that he was not in possession of adulterated chillies. The accused admitted that he had signed a notice given by the Food Inspector informing him that he was purchasing chilly powder for the purpose of analysis