STATE OF GUJART Vs. PRAJAPATI AMRATLAL NATVARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of filing this appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant - State of Gujarat has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order dated 1-6-1996 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Petlad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Magistrate') in Criminal Case No. 2433 of 1985, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under secs. 16 (l) (a) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short ).

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Mr. M. J. Jadav, who was Food inspector, District Kheda, visited grocery shop of the respondent-accused on 21-5-1985 at about 10-00 a. m. in capacity as Food Inspector. He was accompanied by his peon as well as panch. He introduced himself as Food inspector to the accused and collected the sample of turmeric powder by purchasing 450 grams of turmeric powder. He collected the said sample and divided the sample in three equal parts, put the same in transparent dried bottles and sealed the same and paid the price to the accused person. He sent the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after following the procedure prescribed under the law and after analysing the sample, sent his report stating that upon microscopic test, the sample of turmeric powder contained huge quantity of rice starch and did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('the Rules' for short ). Thereupon, necessary sanction for instituting a criminal complaint was obtained by the Food Inspector from the Local Health Authority as envisaged under Sec. 20 of the Act and the complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate. Simultaneously, intimation under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act was given to the accused person, who in turn preferred to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'c. F. L. ' ). The C. F. L. in turn, sent the report to the learned Magistrate after analysing the sample of turmeric powder and the finding of the C. F. L. , upon microscopic test, was that the sample showed presence of foreign starch cells identified as maize starch and the sample was thus found to be adulterated. 2. 1. Before the learned Magistrate, testimony of the complainant - Food inspector Mr. Maganbhai Jadavjibhai Jadav was recorded at Exh. 7. During the course of his deposition, relevant documentary evidence was produced. No more witness was examined by the prosecution before the learned Magistrate. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned Magistrate, by virtue of the impugned judgment and order, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges levelled against the accused and the accused came to be acquitted.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant-State of Gujarat, learned A. P. P. Mr. M. R. Mengde, submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and evidence on record. That the prosecution successfully proved that the sample of turmeric powder was collected from the shop of the accused and in presence of the accused after following due procedure and undergoing due formalities as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The sample was duly packed and sealed and the same was forwarded for analysis to the Public Analyst and the sample of turmeric powder was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. That during the course of collection of sample, its packing and sealing and in forwarding the sample to the Public Analyst, no provision contained in the Act or the Rules have been violated and all the required procedure was duly undergone by the Food Inspector. Legal and valid consent was obtained from the Local Health Authority as provided under sec. 20 of the Act for launching the prosecution against the accused. The learned magistrate erred in coming to the conclusion that mandatory requirements as laid down under the Act and the Rules have not been duly complied with by the Food Inspector at the time of collection of sample, its packing and sealing and while forwarding the sample to the Public Analyst. That in the report of Public Analyst as well as in the report of C. F. L. it is clearly mentioned that the sample was intact and was properly sealed. That, therefore, there was no question of any tampering with the sample of turmeric powder. The sample was found to be fit for analysis. It is submitted that merely because the prosecution could not examine Panch witness in this case, it can never be a ground for acquitting the accused from such serious offence. The Food Inspector is responsible public servant. His testimony recorded before the learned magistrate is beyond any doubt. There was no reason to discard his testimony by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused by virtue of the impugned judgment and order challenged in this appeal and that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the accused be appropriately punished in accordance with law for the offences committed by him.