Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/547/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 547 of 2011
=========================================================
JUNAGADH
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 11/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food
Inspector, Junagadh Mahanagarpalika, under Section 378 Cr. P.C.,
against the Judgment and order dated 8.2.2011, rendered in Criminal
Case No.3852 of 2000 by the learned 6th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh. The said case was registered against
the present respondent Nos.2 to 4 – original accused for the
offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
(for short “PFA Act”) in the Court of learned 6th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh. The said Judgment of
the trial Court has been challenged by the Food Inspector on the
ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is
against the law and evidence on record.
According to the
prosecution case, the complainant – Food Inspector visited the
shop of respondents – accused on 8.5.2000 at 6 o’clock in the
evening alongwith Panchas and witness, and took sample of 750 gram
Mava for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama was also prepared.
Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the
complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst for
analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report in which it has
been found that the sample is adulterated. Upon receipt of the
report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint
against the respondents – original accused for breach of
Section 7(1) of the Act and thereby the accused has committed an
offence under Section 16 of the Act in the Court of learned 6th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, being Criminal Case
No. 3852 of 2000.
At the conclusion of
trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted
the respondents – accused.
Mr.Pujara, learned
advocate appearing for Mr.A.M.Dagli, for the appellant – Food
Inspector has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is
contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has
contended that Mava of 750 gram was taken as sample from the
respondent No.2 firm and was sent for public analysis report, and
after receiving report it was found that the sample, which was sent
for analysis, was adulterated one. He has contended that the trial
Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He has
also contended that the offences punishable under the Act are
directly connected with the health of public at large.
I have gone through the
papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence
led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have
also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. I have also
perused report. It appears from the procedure adopted by the
appellant – original complainant that procedure as per Section
11(1)(C) of the Act was not followed. Learned Counsel for the
appellant is unable to convince this Court as to whether the
prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In the
facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons
assigned by the trial Court.
It is settled legal
position that in acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not
required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when
the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the
trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court
is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by
the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and
adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view,
the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no
interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal
requires to be dismissed.
In
the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment
and order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the learned 6th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, in Criminal Case
No.3852 of 2000, acquitting the respondents – accused, is
hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
kks
Top