STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATWARLAL PITAMBERDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad acquitting the respondent accused of offence punishable under sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with sec. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal are as follows. J. C. Patel who is a Food Inspector attached to the Municipal Corporation for the city of Ahmedabad purchased from the accused who is running a shop in Javahar Chowk in Maninagar area in the city of Ahmedabad 40 grams of chilly powder. It appears that chilly powder was purchased in the presence of Kantilal who is working as a peon and one Shantilal. After following the necessary formalities laid down under the Act sample of chilly powder has sent for analysis to the Public Analyst for the City of Ahmedabad. The Public Analyst in his report gave an opinion that chilly powder was adulterated. J. C. Patel thereupon filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Eighth Court Ahmedabad alleging that the accused had committed offence punishable under sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with sec. 7(1) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence convicted the accused for the offence punishable under sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with sec. 7(1) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence the accused went in appeal before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. It was contended before the learned City Sessions Judge who heard the appeal that J. C. Patel that is the complainant who had filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate was not a Food Inspector on the date on which he took the sample of chilly powder and therefore prosecution of the accused was bad in law. The learned Judge proceeded to decide this contention raised on behalf of the accused on the basis that there was no dispute that complainant Patel did not possess any of the qualifications referred to in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act. On appreciation of evidence on record the learned Judge found that the complainant took charge and commenced to work as Food Inspector three months prior to the dale on which P. W. 2 Kantilal gave his evidence before the learned Magistrate. In the view of the learned Judge though the complainant was appointed as Food Inspector in 1966 he was not working as such and he therefore held that the complainant was not a Food Inspector within the meaning of proviso to the said Rule 8. The learned Judge therefore came to the conclusion that the complainant was not competent to take sample of chilly powder for analysis and he was also not competent to set the law into motion by launching prosecution against the accused. In this view of the matter the learned Judge held that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was wrong. He therefore allowed the appeal filed by the accused and acquitted him. In the view which he took the learned Judge did not consider it necessary to decide other contentions which were raised by the accused before him. It is this order of acquittal which is challenged by the State before us in this appeal.