- (1.)Present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant - Senior Food Inspector, Office of Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Control Admn, Rajpipla - under Sec. 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 23 rd August, 2011, rendered in Criminal Case No.763 of 2012 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla. The said case was registered against the present respondents - original accused for the offences in contravention to Sec. 2(ia)(a) (b), 2(ix)(j)(k) and Sec. 7(1)(2)(v) and Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla, wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondents - accused of the charges levelled against the respondents - accused.
(2.)As per the case of the prosecution on 5 th December, 2003, the complainant Food Inspector Shri A.M. Shah has given complaint against the accsued wherein it is inter alia alleged that he is nominated Food Inspector of State of Gujarat and when he was serving as Food Inspector at Food and Drugs Control Administration, on 5/12/2003, at about 16:00 hrs. he along with Panch Shri Bhupendrabhai Shankarbhai Kanojia, visited one firm running in the name of "Anant Cutlery Stores". At that time, accused no.1 was present at the firm and his firm was retail and wholsesale firm for selling of Biscuits and other food articles including Gutkha. The complainant found two bags each including 50 pouches of gutkha named as "Vaynkateshwar Ka Zee-501 Gutkha". Those bags were in sealed condition. However, it were unsealed and nine packets of Gutkha pouches were purchased by the complainant for analysis purpose. There were writings of Ingredients Trade Mark address name and address of owner, name and address of manufacture and statutory warning on the pouch of Vyanketshwar Zee-501 Gutkha. It shows packig dated 10 th March, 2003, batch No.Z- 10 and writing as "best before six months of the date of packing". The complainant, as per Rules, has informed about taking of sample for the purpose of analysis, in writing in form no.6. At the time of taking samples, he obtained signatures of panch and notice thereof has been given to Vendor. The complainant paid Rs.414.00 for nine packets of Gutkha and issued receipts thereof to the Vendor. Thereafter, he sealed the samples in three parts and after labelling and sealing as per PFA Act, and covering with brown paper sent one of the samples to Public Analyst, Bhuj for the purpose of analysis and other two parcels were sent to LHA Bharuch along with memorandum for no.7. The public analyst, Bhuj reported that the sample does not conform to the standards provided as per the Rules and Act, after obtaining necessary permission from the Local Health Authority complaint was filed against the accsued persons.
2.1 As per sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. summons issued to the accused and thereby accused produced himself through an advocate. Thereafter, present case was tried against the accused as per provisions of Chapter 19 of Cr.P.C . as per warrant trial. Initially, as per sectin 244 of Cr.P.C . evidence of complainant was recorded and thereafter on filing of pursis having no objection against charge which was later on framed, and pleas of accused were recorded wherein he denied his involvement and pleaded the case to be tried.

2.2 After evidence was over and statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing of arguments of both the sides, the learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents - accused of the offences for which they were charged and hence the present appeal.

(3.)Mr. H. K. Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witness Mr. A.M. Shah - the complainant - Senior Food Inspector, who has followed the necessary procedure and after obtaining necessary permission, visited the place of offence, collected the samples as per the legal procedure and the sample was sent to the public analyst. It is further contended that the Court has also not believed the report of the Public Analyst, which clearly mentions that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed under law. The learned Magistrate has without considering the evidence of witness, evidence of Food Inspector has only relied upon the technical aspects and has given the order of acquittal. It is therefore, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court and allow the appeal.