Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/553/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 553 of 2011
=========================================
V
B CHAUHAN - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHAH
ABHAYKUMAR CHUNILAL & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MS
SHAILI A KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
MR HL JANI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 22/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section
378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 29.9.2010,
rendered in Criminal Case No.1071 of 2007 by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad. The said case was
registered against the present respondent for the offence under
Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short
“PFA Act”) in the Court of learned Magistrate,
Ahmedabad. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged
by the complainant 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 12.10.2006 the complainant along with his
peon visited the premises of the respondent No.2 – accused and
took the sample of Mouth-Freshener (Mukhvas) for the purpose of
analysis in the presence of panch. 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 said sample of
Mouth-Freshener (Mukhvas) is adulterated.” Upon receipt of the
report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint
against the respondent – accused in the Court of learned
Magistrate, Ahmedabad being Criminal Case No.1071 of 2007.
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 Ms. Kapadia, appearing on behalf of the appellant has
contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to
law and evidence on record and is not proper. She has also contended
that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the
sample is found adulterated and the provisions laid down under the
Act. She has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate
the report of Public Analyst. She 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. From the judgment, it appears that form the report of the
Public Analyst, it appears that in the sample of Mouth Freshener,
the presence about synthetic colour, which is permitted colour or
non-permitted, is not mentioned by the Public Analyst and even which
Rule is violated is also not stated in the report. The aluminum foil
is not harmful to human life and there is no standard fixed in the
Appendix B. Therefore, the Food Inspector has violated the
procedure laid down under 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 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1071 of 2007,
acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. R &
P is sent back to the concerned trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top