Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1480/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1480 of 2010
=========================================================
V
D PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
MUKESHBHAI
RAMJIBHAI YADAV & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SHAILI A KAPADIA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DK MODI for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR MD MODI
for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL, APP for Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 30/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal is filed by the appellant – Food
Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal
Case No. 4372 of 2008. The said case was registered against the
present respondent No.1 – original accused for the offence
under Sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act (for short “PFA Act”) in the Court of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad. 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 on 18.09.2007, at 12.30 O’clock, the
complainant, along with his peon, visited the business premises of
the respondent – accused and took the sample of “sweet
Mava”, in presence of panch witness, for the purpose of
analysis. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the
complainant sent one sample to the Public Analyst, for analysis. The
Public Analyst submitted the report in which it has been found that
the said sample was adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the
complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the
respondent – accused for the offences under Section 7 and 16
of the Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No. 4372 of 2008.
At
the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment,
acquitted the respondent – accused.
Learned
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant – Corporation
has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary
to law and evidence on record and is not proper. Learned Advocate
has contended that the learned Magistrate has not considered the
evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and that the
documentary evidence produced by the prosecution gets corroboration
with the evidence of the complainant and, therefore, the learned
Magistrate has erred in evaluating the complete sets of documents
while giving the benefits of doubt to the respondent –
accused. She has contended that the offences committed by the
accused are directly connected with the health of the public at
large. She has contended that while taking the sample the
complainant has followed the proper procedure. She has contended
that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting the
respondent with the crime. She has contended that from the oral as
well as documentary evidence it is already established beyond
reasonable doubt that the prosecution has followed the mandatory
provision of law.
I
have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone
through the evidence produced before the trial Court as well as the
Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial
Court. I have also considered the decisions cited by both the
parties before the trial Court. Looking to the papers it clearly
appears that the food Inspector has not followed the procedure as
prescribed by the Rules. The Report of Public Analyst and the report
of Central Food Laboratory shows different nature and colour. The
trial Court has also clearly observed that there is no standard
prescribed in Appendix B for the sample and the method of taking
sample and sealing procedure are suspicious and also that the report
of Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory shows that the nature
and colour of sample are different. Looking to the facts of the case
it clearly appears that the learned Magistrate has observed that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Looking to the evidence produced on record, in my opinion, the trial
Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent –
accused. 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 07.04.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 4372 of
2008, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby
confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
sas
Top