GANGADHAR YASHVANT RAMEKAR Vs. MUKESHBHAI B SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal). Vadoara, rendered by him in Criminal Case No. 4815 of 1983. on 29/08/1988, recording acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Secs. 2(1A), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, with which they were charged. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Food Inspector, Vadodara. who was the original complainant, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) . FACTS : The appellant-Gangadhar Yashvant Ramekar was. around 3/06/1983, working as Food Inspector with Vadodara Municipal Corporation. On that day, at about 10-30 in the morning, he visited Hathlaari Provision Stores of respondent No. 1, who was trading in grocery. He introduced himself to respondent and told him that he has come for inspection and wants to take sample of groundnut oil. He called a Panch witness and, in his presence, he purchased 375 grams of groundnut oil, after following the procedure as laid down by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The price for the said sample was paid to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 informed that, he had purchased the groundnut oil from present respondent No. 2 - Nandkishore Natvarlal of Natvar Oil Depot of Baroda. After following the procedure for preparing three separate samples and sealing, the complainant sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst. Upon receiving the report of the Public Analyst, notice as required under Sec. 13(2) of the Act was sent and complaint was lodged against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Baroda. At the trial, both the respondents, who were accused therein, pleaded not guilty and the trial was proceeded against them. After the trial was over. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted by the impugned judgment and order, considering the evidence on record by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) . Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has disbelieved the case of the complainant mainly on the ground that the sanction/permission given in the instant case for prosecution, as envisaged under Sec. 20 of the Act, cannot be considered as legal and proper, and that the requirements of Sec. 13. sub-sec. (2) of the Act have not been complied with vis-a-vis accused No. 2. Mr. Desai submitted that these conclusions are the result of erroneous interpretation of evidence and law. The question of the sanction being defective has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Rajput v. Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni and Ors., 1996 (7) SCC 199. He submitted that, in the case before the Supreme Court, identical sanction was the matter of dispute arising out of a case from the same Municipal Corporation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to a conclusion that the sanction is valid. He has taken this Court through that decision, wherein the sanction letter is reproduced and has tried to show that the sanction letter in that case and the sanction letter in the instant case before this Court are identical. He, therefore, urged that, on that count, the verdict of the learned Magistrate is erroneous and cannot be sustained.