Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1530/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1530 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT,FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SHRI P R PANCHAL - Appellant(s)
Versus
KAILASHGIRI
ISHWARGIRI MAHANT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
H.L. JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 27/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal is filed by the appellant – State
through food inspector Mr. P.R. Panchal, under Section 378(4) Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 9.4.2010, rendered in
Criminal Case No. 1115 of 1998 by the learned 4th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra. The said case was
registered against the present respondent – original accused
for the offence under Sections 2(1-A) (A) & (B) and Section 7(1)
& 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “PFA
Act”) in the Court of learned 4th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Godhra. The said Judgment of the trial Court
has been challenged by the State 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 1.10.1997 at about 2:45 p.m., the
complainant visited the business premises of the respondent –
accused, along with Panch and took the sample of “Chutki
Gutka” 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 sample was not
in accordance with the standard laid down under the provisions of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Upon receipt of the
report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint
against the respondent – accused for the offences under
Sections 2(1-A) (A) & (B) and Section 7(1) & 16 of the Act
in the Court of learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godhra, being Criminal Case No. 1115 of 1998.
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
Counsel Mr. H.L. Jani, appearing on behalf of the appellant –
State 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 learned Magistrate has not considered the
evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. He has contended that
the Public analyst has unequivocally rendered his opinion that the
food article in question was adulterated and the certificate issued
by the Public analyst is conclusive proof of adulteration. He has
contended that the proper procedure was followed by the Food
Inspector during the raid. He 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 led before the trial Court as well as the
Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial
Court. From the perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears
that the mandatory provisions of law is not followed by the
prosecution and also the prosecution has failed to prove provisions
of Section 10(7) of the act. From the Judgment of the trial Court
it clearly appears that the complainant, in his cross examination,
himself has admitted that the sample of “Chutki Gutka”was
different. Panch has also not supported the case of prosecution. 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 respondent
– 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 9.4.2010 passed by the learned 4th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra in Criminal Case
No.1115 of 1998, acquitting the respondent – accused, is
hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
Vahid
Top