DILIP B MODI Vs. RAMESHBHAI ZINABHAI AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short), the appellant -Food Inspector of Billimora has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.4.1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30/93 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, by which the conviction of the original accused in Criminal Case No. 1854/89 by order dated 15.6.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi, has been set aside and the acquittal has been recorded in the impugned judgment and order.

(2.) THE facts of the present case, briefly summarized, are that the appellant -Mr. Dilipkumar B. Modi, working as Food Inspector at Billimora, had collected sample of milk from the accused, who was a milk vendor, on 29.3.1989 at about 8.30 near Mahadevnagar and sent it for analysis to the Food and Drugs Laboratory, Vadodara. On the basis of the report made by the Food and Drugs Laboratory, Vadodara dated 5.4.89, the sample of the milk was found not as per the required norms as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. A complaint was lodged for the offence under sec. 7(1) and sec. 16 of the said Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi, on the basis of the complaint, issued summons and framed charges for the offence at Exh. 34. The accused claimed to be tried. Therefore, evidence was recorded and further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Thereafter defence witness was also examined. On the basis of the material and evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi, by his judgment and order dated 15.9.1993 recorded the conviction of the accused for the offence under sec. 7(1) of the Act and imposed imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - as per sec. 16 of the Act.

(3.) THE aforesaid order came to be challenged by way of Criminal appeal no. 30/93 before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, and the learned Judge, after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, and on appreciation of evidence, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.1995 recording the acquittal of the accused. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in appreciating the material and evidence on record. It is contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondent accused had sold buffalo milk. The appellant -Food Inspector, after stirring it up, found it to be adulterated and thereby the society at large is affected by consuming such adulterated milk and, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought not to have been given to the accused. It is also contended that as the sample milk was given by the accused himself to the Food Inspector, the question of properly stirring it up and making it homogeneous did not arise and on the basis thereof the benefit of doubt given to the accused was not justified and therefore the acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is erroneous, improper and in fact he ought to have confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi.