STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GORDHANBHAI JASMATBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has preferred this appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 31.5.1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar in Criminal Case No.350 of 1997 acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable under sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act).

(2.) ONE Mr. Y.M. Karud, Food Inspector at Junagadh on 5.5.1997, purchased three bottles of Asfotida (Anmol) each weighing 200 gms from accused No.1. Accused No.2 was the owner of the firm selling the said food articles and had purchased the same from accused No.3. The food article, so purchased was sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted a report and found that as the approximate composition of edible rice flour was not indicated in the label, there was a breach of Rule 42(M) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, after following the due procedure, complaint was lodged against the accused. After recording evidence, charge Exh-81 was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. After hearing oral submissions, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the officer who accorded the sanction had no authority to accord sanction for prosecution and therefore, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 has submitted that Mr. L.L. Raval has accorded the sanction as Local Health Authority and the evidence indicates that at the time of according sanction, Mr. Raval was working as in charge Local Health Authority and therefore, he had no authority to accord sanction and therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. He has relied upon the decision of State of Gujarat v. Dhirajlal Amratlal Kansara and another reported in 16 GLR page 982and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Samirbhai Harishankarbhai Raval rendered in Criminal Appeal No.828 of 2004 on 23.6.2006.