K.J.THAKER, J. - (1.) THE present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellantcomplainant under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2003 rendered in Criminal Case No.713 of 1994 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kheralu, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges of offence under sections 7 (1), 7 (5) and 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act leveled against the respondent accused.
(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.2.1993 when the respondent was carrying milk on his cycle for the purpose of sale to the customers, sample has been drawn by the Food Inspector of Kheralu Nagar Panchayat. After following due procedure under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the sample was drawn and further procedure was undertaken. Thereafter, the sample was sent to the laboratory for analysis. The report of the public analyst reveals that the sample is adulterated. Necessary formalities were completed and after obtaining permission/sanction, complaint was registered against the accused. 2.2 The charge is framed against the accused person, wherein the accused pleaded as not guilty. Therefore, the prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidence against the accused. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 2.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.12.2003 rendered in Criminal Case No.713 of 1994 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kheralu, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
(3.) HEARD learned advocate, Mr.B.T.Rao for the appellant, learned APP, Ms.Shah appearing for the State as well as Mr.Modi for the respondent -accused. Mr.B.T.Rao, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that learned Magistrate has erred in observing that there is a difference in the report of Public Analyst, Rajkot and the Central Food Laboratory, when it was clear that the sample of milk does not conform to the quality of standards prescribed under the Act. He also submitted that the accused is wrongly acquitted in view of the fact that the panchas have not supported the panchnama. He submitted that the reason for such discrepancy is that the incident took place in 1993, while deposition of panchas was recorded in 2004. He also submitted that only in view of some delay in filing the complaint, the accused cannot be acquitted. He also submitted that only on technicalities the trial Court has acquitted the accused, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be reversed.;