H.B.ANTANI, J. - (1.)This is an Appeal preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Code" for short] against the order of acquittal dated 30th September, 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol in Criminal Case No. 148 of 1992 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7[1] and 7[5] as well as Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ["Act" for short].
(2.)Short facts leading to the present Appeal are as under:- 2.1 Complainant who was working as Food Inspector under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, along with a panch witness, visited Mahalakshmi Kirana Stores, shop of the respondent on 3.10.1991 at about 12.15 p.m. from where he purchased 450 grams black pepper by making payment to the respondent. Thereafter, the same was divided into three separate packings and after following the procedure of sealing and putting the lable thereon and after obtaining signature of the panch witness, the same was sent for analysis. On receipt of the analysis report, as it was found that the sample was not fit for human consumption, an offence was registered against the respondent. Thereafter, trial proceeded against the respondent before the learned Magistrate, who framed issues and after considering he depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence, he held that the prosecution has not followed the provisions of Section 7[1], 7[5] as well as Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and thus, by holding that there is breach of the mandatory provisions, learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent.
(3.)Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned APP, appearing for the appellant State, while challenging the judgment rendered by the trial court, submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and evidence on record of the case. The learned Magistrate has erred in not appreciating the documentary evidence on record of the case in its true perspective. It is further submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that sanctioning authority, while granting sanction at the time of lodging of the complaint has not applied its mind. Even there was no breach of Section 13[2] of the Act. Learned Magistrate committed an error in holding that there was breach of provisions of Section 13[2] of the Act. Learned Magistrate has committed an error in holding that requirement as prescribed under Section 11[1][b] of the Act was not scrupulously followed by the Food Inspector. Thus, learned APP submitted that the trial court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7[1], 7[5] as well as Section 16 of the Act. It is submitted that considering the evidence on record of the case, since the prosecution has established the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondent be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7[1], 7[5] as well as Section 16 of the Act.