Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/400/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 400 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
ALIHASAN
ABDUL GAFAR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR JK SHAH
APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR ASHISH H SHAH
for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 02/09/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this application, u/s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the applicant-State has prayed to quash and set aside the order
passed below Exhibit – 10 by the learned J.M.F.C., Umargam in
Criminal Case No.174/2000, whereby, the said application was allowed
and the opponents-original accused were acquitted from the offences
alleged against them.
2. The
facts in brief are that on 29.09.2000, the Food Inspector of the
applicant-State carried out an inspection at the shop belonging to
the opponents. After following due procedure, a sample of Gutkha was
purchased from the opponents and ultimately, the said sample was sent
to the Public Analyst, Rajkot for examination. On examination, the
said sample was found that Gutkha misbranded under Section 2(ix) K of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, a complaint
under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was
filed against the opponents before the Court below and a criminal
case was registered against them. In the said case, the opponents
preferred application Exhibit – 10 praying for their discharge
from the alleged offence in question. The said application came to be
allowed by the Court below by way of passing the impugned order.
Hence, this application.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention raised by the applicant State is that
the Court below erred in concluding that ‘Gutkha’ does not fall
within the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
However, I find that there is nothing on record to show that ‘Gutkha’
has been misbranded. No prescribed standard has been provided in the
Act with respect to ‘Gutkha’ nor there is any provision to include
‘Gutkha’ as a food article.
4. Considering
the facts of the case, and the provisions of the said Act, I am of
the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in
discharging the opponents from the alleged offence in question. I am
in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings
arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere
in this application.
5. Consequently,
the application is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if
any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top