LALJIBHAI ANUATLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Criminal Revision applications are directed under Section 397[2] read with Section 401 of Code of criminal Procedure against the same judgment and order dated 2. 2. 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1 of 1996 and 2 of 1996. Both the applicants of the above criminal Revision Applications, being accused of Criminal Case No. 465 of 1987 came to be prosecuted by learned Judicial magistrate First Class, 3rd Court of vadodara for the offence punishable under section 2[1a][a][b][c][m], Section 7[iv], section 16[1][a] of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. Vide judgment and order dated 19th January, 1996, Judicial magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, vadodara, convicted both the applicants being accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7[1], 16[1] and under Sections 7[ii] and 16[1] and each of the accused came to be sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the applicants paid the fine and learned Judicial Magistrate suspended sentence of imprisonment. Both the accused preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 of 1996 and 2 of 1996 in the Court of Sessions judge at Baroda against their conviction and sentence as awarded by learned Judicial magistrate. Accused No. 1-Laljibhai amrutlal Thakkar preferred Criminal appeal No. 1 of 1996, while accused No. 2-Lalchand Dayaram preferred Criminal appeal No. 2 of 1996. Learned Additional sessions Judge at Baroda, vide his judgment and order, common in both the appeals, dismissed both the Criminal appeal Nos. 1 of 1996 and 2 of 1996 vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1999 and hence, these Criminal Revision applications by both the accused before this Court. Accused No. 1 Laljibhai amrutlal Thakkar preferred Criminal revision Application No. 118 of 1999, while accused No. 2 Lalchand Dayaram preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 199 of 1999.

(2.) REFERRING to the facts of the case, it appears that on 24th February, 1987, original complainant-Food Inspector Mr. S. S. Nagar, as duly authorized and appointed under the provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, visited the grocery shop of accused No. 1 laljibhai Amrutlal Thakkar at village-Sevasi of Baroda Taluka. Mr. Nagar was accompanied by one Panch Govindbhai ambalal Patel. On reaching the shop, complainant-Food Inspector conveyed to accused No. 1 about his intention to purchase the sample of groundnut oil in prescribed Form No. 6. Necessary formality which was required to be observed by the complainant was observed and sample of groundnut oil was purchased at the price of rs. 8. 40 ps which was paid to accused No. 1. Food Inspector had three clean bottles with him as taken from his office and a sample was collected and properly sealed in the manner as has been mentioned in the complaint as well as in the panchnama. One bottle was forwarded to the Chemical analyzer at Baroda along with memorandum Form No. 7 and specimen seal was separately handed over to Public analyst. Remaining two bottles were handed over to Assistant Commissioner and Local [health] Authority along with a memorandum. On receiving the report of public Analyst, it was found that the sample which was forwarded to him for analysis was not in accordance with the standard prescribed by the Prevention of food Adulteration Act and Rules and, therefore, on 17th September, 1987, papers were put up before the Local [health] authority for consent and sanction came to be granted by the Local [health] Authority to prosecute accused Nos. 1 and 2, because, it was found that the said groundnut oil was purchased by accused Nos. 1 from accused No. 2 and hence, a complaint came to be filed before the Court of learned magistrate. Process was issued against both the accused and accused No. 1, vide application Exh. 3 requested the Court of magistrate to send one sample to Central food Laboratory, Gaziabad for analysis. Learned Magistrate, after following due procedure and obtaining part of the sample from Local [health] Authority, sent the same to the Central Food Laboratory, gaziabad. A report was received by the court of Magistrate, wherein also it was found that sample did not conform to the standard of groundnut oil as has been prescribed in the Prevention of Food adulteration Act and the Rules. After some evidence, the trial Court framed charge against both the accused for aforesaid offences at Exh. 41 and they pleaded not guilty and they were tried further. Prosecution examined the complainant-Food Inspector vide Exh. 14 and he produced on record his appointment and authorization vide Notification Exh. 15. Vide Exh. 16 office copy of the notice issued to the accused is produced. Vide exh. 17 a label of the part of the groundnut oil as recovered by the Food Inspector is produced. Exh. 18 is the receipt for the amount paid to accused No. 1 for purchase of groundnut oil. Vide Exh. 19, panchnama is produced. Vide Exh. 20, a memorandum and vide Exh. 21, a receipt of Local [health] Authority to have received sample is produced. Sample was received by Public analyst and receipt of Public Analyst is produced at Exh. 22. Impression of seal is produced at Exh. 23. Vide Exh. 25, a report of Local [health] Authority is produced. Vide Exh. 27, sanction to prosecute both the accused is also produced. Vide Exh. 2?, an office copy of the notice issued to the accused as per Rule 13[2] of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is produced. Vide Exhs. 29 and 30, letters by which the Court forwarded extra sample to central Food Laboratory are produced. Vide Exhs. 32 and 33, report and forwarding letter of Central Food laboratory are placed on record and other necessary documents in this respect are produced vide Exhs. 35, 36 and 37. At exh. 67, Panch Govindbhai Ambalal Patel has been examined by the prosecution and he has turned hostile. On prosecution case being over, learned Magistrate recorded statements of both the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein, both the accused took the defence of total denial.

(3.) ACCUSED No. 1 examined himself at exh. 70. He produced on record vide Exh. 71 a bill by which he had purchased the said groundnut oil from accused No. 2. In examination-in-cross, duplicate copy of exh. 71 is produced at Exh. 72. Vide Exh. 73, in examination-in-cross, accused No. 2 also produced one more bill under which he had sold groundnut oil, to show that how and in what manner sale takes place. Complainant placed on record written arguments at exh. 76. Accused No. 1 also placed written arguments at Exh. 85 and after hearing the learned Advocate for accused No. 2, learned magistrate came to the above conclusion to convict and sentence both the accused for the above said offences and the learned sessions Judge confirmed the conclusions of learned Magistrate by dismissing both the Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 of 1999 and 2 of 1999.