SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (5) Cr. P. C. challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 11. 2. 1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court') in case No. 565/1989, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant Murli Manohar Sharma, Food Inspector, submitted a complaint to this effect that on 21. 9. 1987 he made an inspection of Sanjay Trading Company in presence of accused Mahendra Kumar and he was found to be selling of `dhania'. He submits that the accused respondent was having license of the same. Upon doubt he purchased 600 gm `dhania' and put in three bottles in same quantity. After following the due procedure a complaint was filed in the Court u/s. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. After prosecution sanction, complaint was filed against the accused respondents. The accused respondents were read over the charge in substance for the offence u/s. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The accused respondents did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. From the said of complainant statement of complainant PW. 1 Murlidhar Sharma, Food Inspector was recorded and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 11. 2. 1999 acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offence.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11. 2. 1999 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. In this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. B. N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor for the State that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused respondents. He submits that learned trial Court has wrongly believed the statements of prosecution witness and also considered the prosecution sanction proper. Thus, impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11. 2. 1999 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Per contra Mr. M. M. Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents submits that PW. 1 Manohar Sharma (Food Inspector) was competent to take sample but he has not certified the same as per law. He further submits that the prosecution sanction was not taken in a proper manner. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11. 2. 1999 passed by learned trial Court. ;