Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/119/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 119 of 2011
=========================================================
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (FOR & ON BEHALF OF) - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JAYANT P BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 08/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food
Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 378(4) Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 18.05.2010, rendered in
Criminal Case No. 11194 of 2006 by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedbad. The said case was registered
against the present respondent No.2 – original accused for the
offence under section 16(1)A(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act (for short “PFA Act”), for committing
the breach of Section 7(i) of the Act, in the Court of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 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, the complainant – Food Inspector,
along with his Peon, visited the business premise of respondent No.2
– accused on 18.04.2006 at 09.30 O’clock in the night and, in
presence of panch, took sample of “cow milk” 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 was
adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after
obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondent No.2 –
original accused for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the
Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad,
being Criminal Case No. 11194 of 2006.
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 Mr. Bhatt, appearing on behalf of 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 the complainant has followed the
procedure as prescribed under the law while taking the sample. He
has contended that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported
the case of prosecution and their evidence get corrobortion with the
evidence of each other. He has contended that the present case is
clear case of adulteration attracting the provisions of the Act and
by selling such adulterated food product, the accused has committed
offence under the provisions of the Act. He has also contended that
the offence 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. Looking to the papers and the Judgment of the trial Court, it
appears that the complainant has not followed the proper procedure
while taking the sample. The trial Court has also clearly found that
the sanctioning Authority has not followed the proper procedure
while according the sanction and the sanction was given
mechanically. The learned Magistrate has clearly observed that
there is clear breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
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 18.05.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 11194 of
2005, acquitting the respondent No.2 – accused, is hereby
confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
sas
Top