State Of Gujarat vs Ali Husan Abdul Gafar & Others on 19 January, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 11]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ali Husan Abdul Gafar & Others on 19 January, 2015

Bench: S.G.Shah

         R/CR.RA/357/2004                                          ORDER




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION  NO. 357 of 2004

================================================================
                  STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
      ALI HUSAN ABDUL GAFAR & OTHERS,NOTICE TO BE SERVED  & 
                         1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JD JHAVERI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
                     Date : 19/01/2015
                       ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ms. J.D. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant - State of Gujarat and Mr.Ashish H. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. It has been rightly pointed out by the applicant that when connected Revision Applications are already decided by different Courts at different time and when such orders are not challenged and thereby not overruled by higher authorities, there remains nothing but to follow such decision. He has, therefore, relied upon the judgments and orders of Criminal Revision Application Nos.400 of 2004, 402 of 2004, 436 of 2004 and 403 of 2004. It is not disputed that the material involved in all the above applications and present application are similar i.e. Gutkha and, therefore, when there are judgments on the same issue by different Courts of this Court, there is no reason to deviate from such decision.

Page 1 of 3

R/CR.RA/357/2004 ORDER

3. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner herein - original complainant - State of Gujarat to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Umargam below Exh.7 dated 20/2/2004 passed in Criminal Case No.975 of 2001 by which the learned Magistrate has discharged the respondents herein - original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1a)a, 2(9)k, 7(1)(2), and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under Rules 62 and 32 of the Rules.

4. It appears that the criminal complaint came to be filed against the respondents herein-original accused in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Umargam for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1a)a, 2(9)k, 7(1)(2), and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under Rules 62 and 32 of the Rules, alleging interalia that "Gutkha" purchased from the accused was misbranded and/or adulterated. In the said complaint respondents herein - original accused submitted application Exh.7 for discharge which came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) discharging the respondents herein - original accused, against which the petitioner State has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears that the controversy involved in the present revision application is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court and similar question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge/s of this Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.400, 402, 436 as Page 2 of 3 R/CR.RA/357/2004 ORDER well as 403 of 2004 and considering the fact that "Gutkha" does not fall within the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and no standard has been prescribed with respect to "Gutkha" in the Food Adulteration Act and considering the fact that "Gutkha" is not included as Food Article, the learned Single Judges of this Court have dismissed the similar applications preferred by the very petitioner State confirming the similar order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) discharging the accused.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in Criminal Revision Application Nos.400, 402, 436 as well as 403 of 2004, present Criminal Revision Application also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(S.G.SHAH, J.) VATSAL Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court