JAGDISHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI KHATRUOWNER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial magistrate First Class, Modasa, Camp Bayad in Criminal Case No. 97 of 1993, whereby the learned J. M. F. C. was pleased to convict accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 252 (2) for the offence committed under Section 2 (A) (B) (M) and Section 7 (1) (5) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration act (hereinafter referred as the 'act') and sentenced them under Section 16 (1-A) (1) of the Act for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, one month simple imprisonment. The learned J. M. F. C. was pleased to acquit them for the offence under Section 2 (9) (k) of the Act and for Rule 5 and 44 (M) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The accused had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 8th Fast Track Court, Modasa-Sabarkantha, being Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2006. The learned First appellate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal and uphold judgment and order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. dated 24. 7. 2001.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are that the complainant- Food Inspector, on 17. 8. 1992 at about 4. 00 p. m. , visited the place of one Shri Mukundbhai Shanabhai Bhrahmbhatt- vendor- original accused No. 1 (who was acquitted by the learned Magistrate ). The complainant- Food Inspector from said Shri Mukundbhai Shanabhai bhrahmbhatt, who was carrying on his business in the name and style of 'm/s. Rameshwar Kirana Store', purchased packed tins of that 'hing' in the name of Shakti of Jay Ambe Masala Gruhudhyog Bhandar. Respondent no. 2 -Food Inspector showed his Identity card to the vendor and, in presence of one panch, gave notice as required under the Act and intimated the vendor that he wants to take sample of 'hing' for analysis from the stocked containers. Respondent No. 2- Food Inspector purchased six containers of 'shakti- Hing' as sample and paid consideration thereto. The vendor submitted the bill from whom he in turn had purchased those containers. Those containers were purchased by the vendor from the present petitioners.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2- Food Inspector divided six containers in three lots. The same were wrapped in a brown paper and respondent No. 2- Food inspector, in presence of panch and the vendor, carried out the procedure of labeling, wrapping, packing, etc. Respondent No. 2 prepared a panchnama and then sent one packet of sample to the Public Analyst at Rajkot whereas the remaining two packets were sent to the Local Health Authority, gandhinagar. Respondent No. 2 also sent necessary notice in form No. VI by Registered Post A. D. to the petitioner. The Public Analyst, Rajkot found the sample to be adulterated as well as misbranded. Respondent no. 2 then submitted necessary papers for grant of sanction under Section 20. On grant of sanction, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and the vendor.