Gujarat High Court
State vs Mahendrakumar on 24 November, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1193/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1193 of 2010
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT (FOR & ON BEHALF OF D B BAROT, FOOD INSPECT -
Appellant(s)
Versus
MAHENDRAKUMAR
AMRUTLAL DESAI (SELLER OF SEMPLE & OWNER) & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR HH
PARIKH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 24/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 (4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 30.1.2010, rendered in Criminal Case No.3429 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bardoli. The said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Section 7(1)(5) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned JMFC, Bardoli. 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 10.4.2001 the complainant along with Panch witness visited the premises of the respondent - accused and took the sample of Pasteurised Standardized Milk (Sumul) for the purpose of analysis. 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 of Pasteurised Standardized Milk (Sumul) does not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955." Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondent - accused in the Court of learned JMFC, Bardoli, being Criminal Case No.3429 of 2002.
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 A.P.P. Shri Parikh, 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 also contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the sample does not conform to the standards and the provisions laid down under the Act. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He 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. From the perusal of the papers, it is established that the sample was taken by the complainant on 10.4.2001 and report was received on 18.5.2002 and then the complaint was filed. On 3.6.2002 at Exhibit 74, respondent original accused has made application for reanalysis and the learned trial Court has passed order. The sample was sent for further analysis on 20.7.2002 and then after two years that sample was sent and on 31.8.2004, at Exhibit 75, the analysis report was produced. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court .Therefore, the prosecution has filed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of Act. 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 30.1.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bardoli in Criminal Case No. 3429 of 2002, acquitting the respondents - accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top