Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/478/1991 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 478 of 1991
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
=========================================================
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 - Appellant(s)
Versus
BACHUBHAI
BAKERBHAI & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
CM SHAH APP for Appellant(s) : 1,
MRS QUEROBINA YAGNIK for
Opponent(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 07/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed
against the order dated 12.04.1991 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.5 of 1988 by
which, the respondents/original accused came to be acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16(1A)(I) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1944. (for short, the Act .).
2. Learned
A.P.P. Ms.Shah submits that the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Magistrate is contrary to law and the evidence on record
inasmuch as report of Central Food Laboratory reveal that cow milk
carried by the accused was found to have been adulterated. Besides,
procedure, as established under the law, was followed by the
authority and the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation namely, the local authority, under
the Act, had no authority for giving sanction under Section 20 of the
Act.
3. On
perusal of the Record and Proceedings along with the submissions made
by the learned A.P.P., I am of the opinion that the prosecution, as
rightly held by the learned Magistrate, could not prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, the complaint was filed by the
authority and Central Food Laboratory had examined the sample after
two and half years.
4. Considering
the above aspect and the defence of the accused and the findings of
the learned Magistrate, that mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of
the Act, were breached and thus, it cannot be said that the judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate requires any
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal fails
and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Record and
Proceedings be sent back forthwith.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
Hitesh
Top