STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated October 27, 2005 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kekri, Distt. Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 259/93 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Gauri Shanker Sharma Food Inspector (complainant) has filed a complaint against the accused respondent before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that on 19.3.1993 at about 6 p.m. in village Junia when he reached at the shop of the accused respondent he saw that he kept 10 kgs. Turmeric powder in a tin and the Food Inspector purchased 450 gms. turmeric powder and after checking it, it was found adulterated. The accused respondent was supplied Form No.6 and sealed the turmeric powder in a cleaned vessle and thereafter sent the said turmeric powder for examination by the FSL. The FSL found unidentified oil soluble shade detected and gave opinion that the sample is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standards and due to the addition of rice flour. After obtaining the FSL report, the Food Inspector has filed complaint before the concerned court stating that the accused respondent has committed the offence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and summoned the accused through warrant. After completing the evidence and recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing both the parties, the ACJM acquitted the accused respondent by the impugned judgment. Against the said order of acquittal the State has filed the Criminal Leave to appeal and the same was treated as appeal by the order of this court dated 24.4.2008.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court by which the accused respondent was acquitted is patently illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. The trial court has not believed the statement of the the Food Inspector PW.2 Buari Shanker by which he stated that on 19.3.93 he went to the shop of the accused respondent and purchased the Turmeric powder and on seeing it , it was found to be adulterated. The trial court has also not considered this fact that the accused has no licence for selling this Turmeric Powder. The trial court has also not believed the FSL report in which it is clear that there were unidentified oil soluble colour of orange shade in the Turmeric Powder. The turmeric power was adulterated but even then the trial court acquitted the accused respondent. It was prayed that the judgment of acuittal be set aside and the accused respondent may be punished under section 7/16 of the Prvention of Food Adulteration Act on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution and FSL report and other documents.