STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESHCHANDRA LALJIBHAI KANABAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgement and order dated 27.10.2010 rendered by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 881 of 1999 recording acquittal for the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 7 (1)(5) read with section 16 read with section 2(ia)(a)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( for short 'the P.F.A. Act') has been assailed in this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C').

(2.) Having considered the rival contentions, it is noticed that the public analyst acknowledged the wooden unsealed box containing the sealed food article packaged Gutka "Mini Manekchand". He detected contents of Gutka Magnesium Carbonate (MgCo3 ) and also found the presence of characteristic debris of tobacco leaf and betel nuts (Sopari) in it and rendered an opinion, of course without pointing out method adopted by him for such opinion, that the sample of Gutka "Manekchand" does not comply with the proviso to Rules 62 and 32(b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ( for short 'P.F.A Rules') for want of accurate specification of the product, on it label.

(3.) Concededly the box contained 50 small pouches of Gutka each one weighing 2 gms. Learned counsel for the opponents has successfully pointed finger on the 6th proviso to Rule 32(b) of P.F.A Rules to point out that in case of package weighing 2 gms or less, the particulars in clause (b) regarding ingredients used in the product in descending order or their composition by weight, or volume as the case may be, need not be specified. There is no dispute that each of the package collected by the Food Inspector individually weighed only 2 gms and thus in view of the 6th proviso above referred, no obligation lay upon the manufacturer to mention the details sought for by clause (b) of Rule 32 on it.