HIMANSHUBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 05th August, 2010 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2007 whereby the learned Additional City Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 23rd August, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.36 of 2001.

(2.) The short facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant is Food Inspector. It is the case of the prosecution that that on 17th June, 2000 at about 11.30 hours the complainant and his peon were standing at Sarkhej octroi toll booth for the purpose of taking specimen of the foods being transported in the vehicles. At that time one temp passed and it was intercepted by the complainant. When the driver of the tempo was asked about the goods, the driver told that he was on his way to deliver oil tins to Puja Chambers, Vasna, Ahmedabad and further stated that the said goods were purchased by the present applicant. Thereafter the applicant was called to the place. Thereafter, in presence of panch witness, the complainant take sample of oil from one of the tins after paying consideration. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Ahmedabad for analysis. On examination, the Public Analyst found that the said sample was not in confirmity with the standard prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules and the same appeared to be adulterated. Therefore, after following the due procedure, complaint was filed against the present applicant in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) Thereafter the learned Magistrate issued summons to the applicant and then charge was framed; however, the applicant denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial against the applicant commenced. After hearing both the sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 23rd August, 2007 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused No.2 giving benefit of doubt.