STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATIRA PACKAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bardoli on 10.4.1990 in Criminal Case No. 1748 of 1987 whereby accused were tried for an offence punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the present prosecution are as under: 2.1 Food Inspector visited Messrs. Patira Packaging, respondent No. 1, situated at Limdachowk, Valod on 27.3.1987 at about 11.30 a.m. and also on 25.9.1987 at 9.00 a.m. As per record, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Accused No. 1) is a partnership firm and there were four partners in all i.e. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5). It appears that original accused No. 4 alleged to have been a partner, has been deleted, vide Exh. 9, as she was not a partner on the date of offence. Accused No. 1 is a manufacturing firm and it has also got another manufacturing unit at Rajkot. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have manufactured an article of food known as "Tasty Pappad". On 27.3.1987, one Madhusudhan was called as a Panch in whose presence the panchnama was drawn. It clearly reveals that accused No. 1 was manufacturing without a licence as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Salesman Jayeshbhai Desai was present at the relevant time and from him samples of Tasty Pappad were collected. Again, on 25.9.1987, when the firm was visited at 9.00 a.m., work of packaging the Pappad was in the process. As the manufacturing process was carried on without a licence as required under the Rules, the person concerned, viz: Vijay Sighala who was present at the relevant time was asked to produce details regarding the firm and he failed to produce details regarding the firm. Ultimately a letter was written calling upon the firm to furnish the details, which was also not replied, and, therefore, details were called for from the office of Mamlatdar, Valod. As the firm was found manufacturing food article without a licence, which is prohibited under Sec. 7 (iii) of the Act read with Rule 50 of the Rules, after obtaining consent from the Appropriate Authority, prosecution came to be launched. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, on facts held against the accused persons. However, on the point of 'consent' held that it is not sufficient for the sanctioning authority to grant consent merely on finding that prima facie case is made out indicating that the offence is committed, but the sanctioning authority must be satisfied that the prosecution is in the interest of public. The Trial Court held that as there was nothing to indicate that the prosecution was in the interest of public, it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind, and, therefore, held that sanction accorded is not in accordance with Sec. 20(1) of the Act. On this ground, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. It is against this order the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Before this Court, it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Anandjiwala appearing for the original accused that in the instant case, consent is not as per law, and, therefore, the order of acquittal is not required to be interfered with. On the merits of the case, Mr. D.N. Patel. learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is sufficient evidence to show that the manufacturing process was going on without a valid licence as required under the Act and the Rules. Mr. Anandjiwala initially submitted that the manufacturing activities were going on at Rajkot, but ultimately, after going through the evidence, he confined his submission only with regard to the consent. Therefore, this Courl is required to consider whether the consent accorded by the competent authority is legal and valid or not.