Gujarat High Court
M C Bhatt Food Inspector vs Ashok Viththalbhai Patel & ... on 7 April, 2015
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/622/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 622 of 2006
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 ?
================================================================
M C BHATT FOOD INSPECTOR....Appellant(s)
Versus
ASHOK VITHTHALBHAI PATEL & 1....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KI SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK TRIVEDI, 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 6
R/CR.A/622/2006 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 30.10.2002, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.15 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. The said case was registered against the present respondents - original accused for the offence under Sections 2(1A) (A), 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 of this case on 31.3.1998 at 7 O'clock in the morning was going to sell milk in three wheeler tempo. At that time, near Adajan Pumping Station, Adajan Road, from Tempo No.GJP1437, from one can of 40 liters milk of buffalo sample was taken for analysis. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the Page 2 of 6 R/CR.A/622/2006 JUDGMENT said sample to the 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)(A), 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.15 of 1999.
3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents
- 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 the report of the Public Analyst reveals that there is a marginal defect in the sample of milk so the accused cannot be convicted rather he ought to have appreciated the fact that the report of the Public Analyst clearly Page 3 of 6 R/CR.A/622/2006 JUDGMENT reveals that the percentage of the fat which must be 6% as per law was only 5.6 which means that it was not upto the marked and was not fit for human consumption. He has contended that the learned Judge has erred in giving benefit of Section 13(2) of the Act to accused instead he ought to have appreciated that the copy of the complaint was duly served upon the accused and the accused never applied for availing the right under Section 13(2) of the Act. 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) 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 Page 4 of 6 R/CR.A/622/2006 JUDGMENT 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 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 Page 5 of 6 R/CR.A/622/2006 JUDGMENT 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 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.
8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 30.10.2002, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.15 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, acquitting the respondents - accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) KKS Page 6 of 6