Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/335/2005 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 335 of 2005
=========================================================
M
C BHATT FOOD INSPECTOR - Appellant(s)
Versus
HARJIVANDAS
MAGANLAL & COMPANYPARTNERSHIP FIRM & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RR MARSHALL for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DK MODI for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR MD
MODI for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR HL JANI, APP for Opponent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 10/08/2011
ORAL ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food
Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C.,
against the Judgment and order dated 6.05.2002, rendered in P.F.A.
Case No.15 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(Municipal Court), Surat. The said case was registered against the
present respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original accused for the
offence under sections 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
(for short “PFA Act”) in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (Municipal Court), Surat. 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 J.M.F.C. is
against the law and evidence on record.
According to the
prosecution case, the complainant – Food Inspector visited the
firm of respondent No.1 – accused on 8.09.1999 at 11.30 A.M. and, in
presence of panch, took 600 gram groundnut oil 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 respondent Nos.1 to
4 – original accused for breach of Section 7 of the Act and
thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 16 of
the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(Municipal Court), Surat, being P.F.A. Case No. 15 of 2001.
At
the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence, the learned J.M.F.C. vide impugned Judgment,
acquitted the respondents – accused.
Mr.Mirza,
learned advocate appearing for Mr.R.R.Marshall, 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 learned Judge ought to have considered
the fact that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the partners and it was
clear from oral inquiry by the Food Inspector. He has contended that
learned Judge have erred in coming to the conclusion that the sample
was not tested by the Public Analyst himself. 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’s Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial
Court. The learned J.M.F.C. has rightly observed that complainant
has not produced any evidence showing Harjivandas Maganlal Company
is a partnership firm. I have also perused report. The learned
J.M.F.C. has rightly observed that complainant has not produced
press ticket or label from which oil-tin groundnut oil was taken.
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 6.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class (Municipal Court), Surat, in P.F.A. Case No.15 of 2001,
acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 – accused, is hereby
confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
kks
Top