K A MEHTA Vs. SURESH KUMAR LAXMANJI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ahmedabad on 30th December, 2006 in Criminal Case No. 13 of 2004 whereby the respondent accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act".)

(2.) THE appellant was serving as a Food inspector in the Health Flying Squad of ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and his appointment was notified in the Government Gazette. On 6. 8. 2003 at about 7. 30 in the morning, the appellant stopped, on the road, loading vehicle bearing No. GJ. 2-Q-8618 with the respondent accused carrying milk containers. On inquiry, the respondent accused informed him that he was doing the business of selling milk. There were about 7 to 8 aluminium milk containers in the vehicle containing Cow milk. After ascertaining the price, and quality of milk, the appellant purchased about 1500 mililiters of milk and paid Rs. 15 to the respondent accused, who stirred the milk in the container and gave it to the appellant in a clean empty container. A Panch was called and the respondent-accused was informed in writing that the sample of milk purchased was to be sent to Laboratory for analysis. The milk was stirred and mixed with the help of steel spoon and was filled in equal quantity in three bottles. The bottles were packed and sealed. Thereafter one of the bottles was sent to the Laboratory at ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for analysis. On analysis, it was found that the milk sample was adulterated. Therefore a complaint for the offence punishable under section 7 (i) of the Act was lodged and summons was issued against the respondentaccused. On completion of recording of evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the respondentaccused were explained to him. In the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the respondent-accused denied having committed the offence and claimed that false case is filed against him. After hearing oral submissions, the learned Metropolitan magistrate came to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge and therefore the respondent accused was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I nave heard learned advocate Mr. Marshall for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. D. K. Modi for respondent No. 1 and learned A. P. P. Mrs. F. D. Patel for respondent No. 2.