STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LAGHADHIRBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code', for short) challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol ('Ld. Magistrate', for short) dated 22.2.1996 in Criminal Case No.218 of 1991. The Learned Magistrate by virtue of the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 16( 1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act', for short).

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as under: 2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.2.1991 at about 5.30 p.m., Food Inspector Mr. Suman Chandra Trivedi along with the Sanitary Superintendent Kantilal Hargovinddas Trivedi visited the shop of the respondent-accused and after disclosing their identity to the accused, collected sample of groundnut oil approximately 400 grams in weight and divided the sample in 3 equal parts, and collected the same in 3 different bottles, and paid the price of the same to the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that while collecting the sample, the prescribed procedure was duly followed, and thereafter, each bottle containing the part of the sample was duly packed and sealed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. One of the samples was sent for analysis and the report of the Public Analyst was received stating that the sample does not confirm with the stan- dard laid down in the Act. The two bottles containing the samples were sent to Local Health Authority. The Food Inspector thereafter sought for the sanction for launching prosecution against the accused under the Act from the Local Health Authority and in turn, the Local Health Authority granted sanction for launching the prosecution. Accordingly, the Food Inspector Mr. Suman Chandra Trivedi filed a private complaint regarding the offence under the Act in the Court of learned Magistrate. 2.2 Since the accused did not plead guilty, the learned Magistrate recorded the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. The deposition of Food Inspector Mr. Suman Chandra Trivedi was recorded at exh.14. During the course of his deposition, relevant documentary evidence was produced and proved. The deposition of panch witness Sanjay Ratilal at Exh.44 was recorded and lie was declared hostile witness by the prosecution. The deposition of Local Health Authority Mr. Anil Tulsidas was recorded at Exh.45 and the deposition of Kantilal Hargovinddas, who was sanitary superintendent at the relevant time was recorded at Exh.5.2. After the completion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code wherein the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Magistrate delivered the impugned judgment and order, whereby he was pleased to acquit the accused.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant-State, learned A.P.P. Mr. M.R. Mengde submitted that the judgment and order delivered by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and facts on record. That the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the sample collected from the shop of the accused was found to be adulterated. That the complainant Food Inspector Mr. Suman Chandra Trivedi and the Sanitary Superintendent Kantilal Hargovinddas Trivedi who had accompanied the complainant at the time when the sample was collected clearly deposed in their depositions regarding the manner in which the sample was collected and manner in which it was packed and sealed and forwarded to the Public Analyst and the Local Health Authority; That both these witnesses were public servants and there was no reason, whatsoever to discard their depositions. That thus, the learned Magistrate failed in properly appre- ciating in its true perspective the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. That the learned Magistrate placed much emphasis regarding not mentioning certain details in the complaint of the Food Inspector. That it is not well settled that in the complaint, details regarding the offence are not required to be mentioned. Therefore, the learned Magistrate erred in comparing the depositions of Food Inspector and Sanitary Superintendent with the complaint, and observing that certain details which these witnesses stated in their depositions are not referred in the complaint. That all the required mandatory requirements were duly complied with. That merely because the panch witness turned hostile, that also cannot be a sole ground for acquitting the accused from the serious offence under the Act. That the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the depositions of the complainant Food Inspector and Sanitary Superintendent are contradictory.That in fact, no material contradictions are there in their depositions. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal be allowed, and the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the respondent accused be appropriately punished for offence punishable under Section 16(1) r/w. Section 7 of the Act, in accordance with law.