Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat & vs Dharmesh Jagdish Patel & ... on 25 March, 2015
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/850/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 850 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
================================================================
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 or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
DHARMESH JAGDISH PATEL & 1....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS HANSA PUNANI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR MD MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 25/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 378(1) (3) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 16.1.2004, rendered in Food Page 1 of 5 R/CR.A/850/2004 JUDGMENT Criminal Case No.15 of 2003 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1
- original accused for the offence under sections 2(IA), (J), (M),
(ix) (d), 7(i) (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned trial Court is against the law and evidence on record.
2. According to the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 is doing the business of dairy product and the respondent No.2 is proprietor of the dairy farm. The original complainant received information that the respondent No.1 is selling mango milk shake at his dairy farm and same is not upto the mark fo quality which prescribed under the law and therefore, the complainant visited the place on 5.5.2003 at about 12:00 Hrs. He informed to the respondent No.1 about the complaint and therefore, the complainant - Food Inspector, took the sample of Mango Milk Shake for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama was also prepared. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the saidsamples to the Central Food Laboratory, Vadodara, for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report in which it Page 2 of 5 R/CR.A/850/2004 JUDGMENT has been found that the sample is adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondents No.1 - original accused for the alleged offence. Therefore, aforesaid Criminal Case was registered.
3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents - accused.
4. Learned APP Mrs. Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. She has contended that learned trial Judge has committed error in acquitting the accused on the ground that there is inconsistency in the deposition of the complainant. She has further contended that synthetic food colour is not permitted beyond prescribed limit as per the provisions of PFA Act. She has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. She has also contended that the offences punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Modi for the respondents - accused supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and he submitted that learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated Page 3 of 5 R/CR.A/850/2004 JUDGMENT the evidence produced on record and therefore, no interference is required to be called for. He lastly submitted that present appeal may kindly be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
6. 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 public annalist report. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that when in Appendix-B no standard is prescribed for milk-shake, the complaint against the respondents cannot stand. Learned APP for the appellants is unable to convince this Court as to whether the prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
7. 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 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.A/850/2004 JUDGMENT 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.
8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.1.2004 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad, in Criminal Case No.15 of 2003 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 5 of 5