LAWS(GJH)-2009-2-324

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GOVINDBHAI REVACHAND DULANI

Decided On February 10, 2009
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Govindbhai Revachand Dulani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr. P.C.] challenging the judgment and order rendered by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham, [for short 'the Ld. Magistrate'] on 30/11/1995 in Criminal Case No. 727 of 1987 recording acquittal of the respondent -accused for the offence punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act [for short 'the Act'].

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, was that on 9/12/1986 at about 12.10 noon complainant Food Inspector Mr. Sarvaiya visited the grocery shop of the accused and collected sample of ground -nut oil for the purpose of analysis. The sample was forwarded to Public Analyst and it was opined that it does not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction for the purpose of launching prosecution, Food Inspector Mr. Sarvaiya filed private complaint against the respondent -accused for the offence punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act. Since the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the Ld. Magistrate recorded acquittal of the respondent -accused solely on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which the sample was analyzed. It was observed that the analysis was made by the Public Analyst on 20/12/1986, but the report was prepared and signed on 24/12/1986.

(3.) LD . APP Mr. Mengdey for the State submitted that the Ld. Magistrate recorded the acquittal of the accused solely on the ground that the Public Analyst did not prepare and sign the report on the date on which the analysis of the sample was made. Ld. APP Mr. Mengdey relied upon a decision rendered in the case of State of Gujarat v. Vishramdas Virumal reported in and submitted that the report of the Public Analyst cannot be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the Court or the accused raising the doubt about the correctness of the report only on the ground that the report is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which the sample was analyzed. My attention was also drawn to the decision rendered in the case of Kantibhai Motibhai Limbachiya v. Amratlal Nyalchand Shah decided by this Court on 29/12/2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1998. In the result, it was submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording the acquittal of the respondent -accused deserve to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court to consider this part of the evidence regarding correctness of the report of the Public Analyst. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the matter be remanded.