STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHUPENDRA M MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded on 29-4-1991 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nakhtrana, Kutch in Criminal Case No. 171 of 1988, wherein the accused were tried for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

(2.) Food Inspector Liyakatali, PW. 1, appointed as such vide Government Gazette produced on record at Exh. 8, has stated in his deposition Exh. 7 that on 30-11-1987 he visited the shop of the accused dealing in the name of M/s. Surendrakumar and Company situated at Nakhtrana, and after soliciting services of panchas and after giving intimation, collected the sample of groundnut oil from the accused. The sample was collected by means of a steel bowl which was clean and dry. Thereafter the same was poured into three dry and clean bottles which were thereafter closed by means of cork so as to prevent leakage and to prevent entry of moisture into the bottle. Thereafter seals were applied in accordance with the rules. One sample was forwarded on the next day with a memorandum, Form No. VII to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst opined in his report, Exh. 19, that the sample of food, viz. ground nut oil, was not in accordance with the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Thereafter, on getting the consent, Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the accused and sent the intimation to the accused along with a report of Public Analyst as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act.

(3.) It appears that the accused requested the Court to forward one sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Central Food Laboratory, on analysis, opined that the sample did not conform to the standard of groundnut oil as laid down under item No. A.17.03 of the Rules. B. R. Reading and Iodine value were above the maximum prescribed limits. Bellier Turbidlity temperature was less than the minimum prescribed limit. The Central Food Laboratory, therefore, opined that the sample was adulterated.