A.G. Uraizee, J. - (1.) The present appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("the Code" for short) assails the legality and validity of the judgement and order of acquittal dated 30/9/2006 recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case NO. 1/2003, whereby the respondents came to be acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of the offence punishable under section 16 read with Section 7(1)(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant Food Inspector Shri S.M.Rao is a Government notified Food Inspector and at the relevant point of time he was serving with the office of the Commissioner, Food and Drugs Control Admn, Gandhinagar. On 10.10.2002 at about 12.30 p.m. Complainant Food Inspector Shri S.M.Rao along with Panch Kamlesh Manibhai Prajapati have visited shop of respondent accused named M/s. Hira Mistan, situated at Kapadia Mension, Opp. Ramji Mandir, Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. The complainant Food Inspector, after introducing himself as a Food Inspector has purchased sample of 750 grams of mohanthal from accused no. 1 in the presence of panchas and in compliance with provision of Rules, submitted mudamal sample to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter, on receipt of report from Public Analyst as it was found that muddamal sample is adulterated, necessary sanction was obtained from the competent authority, and complaint was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ahmedabad city against respondents accused. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case was registered and it is numbered as Criminal Case No. 1/2003 and respondents were ordered to be issued with summons and after service of summons, the respondents have appeared before the Hon'ble Court. It is further the case of prosecution that charges were read over to respondents, wherein they have not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
(3.) Before the Trial Court the prosecution has examined Complainant, and Panch witnesses who were supporting to the case of prosecution. The prosecution has also relied upon the documentary evidence in support of oral evidence laid by prosecution before the trial court. At the end of trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgement and order dated 30.9.2006 was pleased to acquit the respondents for the charges levelled against them.;