Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.A/381/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No 381 of 2011
================================================================
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION....Appellant(s)
Versus
PARSOTTAMBHAI
DANOMAL HARVANI & 1....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS
JIRGA D JHAVERI as ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR
HL JANI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 14/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER The present acquittal
Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food Inspector, Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the
Judgment and order dated 22.4.2010, rendered in Criminal Case No.51
of 2004 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,
Ahmedbad. The said case was registered against the present
respondent No.1 original accused for the offence under section
16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short PFA
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 shop of respondent No.1 – accused on 16.07.2003 at
11.30 A.M. and, in presence of panch, took 3 packs of Eagle Branch
Chikki 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 No.1 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
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No. 51 of
2004.
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 Mrs.
Jirga Jhaveri, 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. She has
contended that tetrazzinis yellow synthetic food colour is not
permitted as per the provisions of PFA Act. She has contended that
the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public
Analyst. She 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 Rule 28 and Rule 30 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that tetrazzinis
yellow synthetic food colour is permitted upto 100 PPM. I have also
perused report. 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 22.4.2010
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,
Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 51 of 2004, acquitting the
respondent No.1 accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
kks
Page
5 of 4
  Â
Top