Gujarat High Court
K.G.Patel vs Lilabhai Ranabhai Mer & ... on 7 April, 2015
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1940 of 2005
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 ?
================================================================
K.G.PATEL....Appellant(s)
Versus
LILABHAI RANABHAI MER & 1....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KI SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KV SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 07/04/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 23.02.2005, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.16 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. The said case was registered against the present respondent - original accused for the offence under Sections 2(1A) (M), 7(1) & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the Food Inspector on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.
2. According to the prosecution case, the accused was doing business of selling buffalo milk. On 5.6.2003, at 5:30 in the morning the complainant was on duty and he went near Rushabh Petrolpump, Rander Road, Surat. At that time, the accused was going for selling buffalo milk in two aluminum can in Tempo bearing No.GJ16 T7993. The complainant took the sample of milk for analysis. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said sample to the Page 2 of 7 R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report in which it has been found that the sample is adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondents - original accused for breach of Sections 2(1A)(M), 7(1) & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, being P.F.A.Case No.16 of 2003.
3. 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.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.K.I.Shah, appearing on behalf of the appellant - Food Inspector has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has contended that learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the difference found in the fat and solid fat was marginal, rather he ought to have appreciated that though the difference as indicated in the report of the public analyst was marginal Page 3 of 7 R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT but still as per the report of the public analyst the sample of milk was not as per the standards specified in the Act. He has contended that it was not the case of the accused that the said difference was due to the procedural defect. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in appreciating the fact that no label was there on the can of the milk showing that the milk was of buffalo, rather he ought to have appreciated that the accused himself have stated that the milk was of the buffalo and the said fact is also revealed in the deposition of the witness that the accused himself informed the complainant that the milk was of buffalo. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge being illegal, invalid and improper, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and learned APP for the respondent - State. The learned advocate for the respondents have drawn attention of the Court to para6 of the judgment and contended that looking to the present complaint the Apex Court in the case of P.S.Sharma Vs. Madanlal Kasturichandji and Anr. reported in 2002(2) Page 4 of 7 R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT FAC 224, has observed in para2 as under : "2. On the basis that the samples of the milk taken from the respondents contained 6.6 per cent of milk fat and 7.5 per cent of milk solids nonfat, the proceedings were initiated. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample contained 3.01 milk fat and 11.02 per cent milk solids nonfat. The difference ultimately came down to only one per cent from the standard quantity. On this aspect, the contention put forth on behalf of the respondents is that the difference in percentage is on account of the circumstance that the distribution of fat in the milk in separate sample bottles will not be even as a result of violent churning of the milk. When marginal difference like one per cent was noticed by the Public Analyst or by the Central Food Laboratory, the Courts have taken the view that it is possible that there may be some error creeping in the conclusion reached thereto. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has upheld the orders of the Courts below acquitting the accused in the case of Administrator of the City of Nagpur vs. Laxman & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.132/1986, decided on 4th May, 1994, 1996(2) FAC 297. The view taken by the High Court of Gujarat in State vs. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai 1982(II) FAC 314 :
1982(2) GLR Vol. 23, 624, followed by the High Court is also on the same line."
5. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. I have perused observations made by the Apex Court. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have also gone Page 5 of 7 R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT through the Judgment of the trial Court.
Learned advocate for the appellant 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 rewrite 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 respondent - 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.
8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 23.02.2005, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.16 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, acquitting the Page 6 of 7 R/CR.A/1940/2005 JUDGMENT respondent - accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) KKS Page 7 of 7