Gujarat High Court
Vimal vs Kalubhai on 13 July, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/848/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 848 of 2011
=========================================================
VIMAL
B CHAUHAN - Appellant(s)
Versus
KALUBHAI
AMBALAL JESANI & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SHAILI A KAPADIA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, APP for
Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 13/07/2011
ORAL ORDER
The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 7.4.2011, rendered in Criminal Case No.970 of 2010 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 - original accused for the offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. 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.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant - Food Inspector, along with his Peon, visited the factory of respondent No.1 - accused on 23.11.2009 at 1.00 P.M. and, in presence of panch, took 900 gram 'carrot chutni' for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama was also prepared. 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 is adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondent No.1 - original accused for breach of Section 7 of the Act and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 16 of the Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No.970 of 2010.
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 Advocate Ms. Shaili Kapadia, 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. 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 contended that learned trial Judge merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises observed that the report of Central Food Laboratory is in respect of some other sample. She further contended that synthetic food colour is not permitted beyond prescribed limit of 100 PPM 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.
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. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. I have also perused Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that looking to the Central Food Laboratory Certificate there is only book name and page number is mentioned and name of method is not mentioned; and the paper chromatography test is not sufficient test. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that complainant
- Food Inspector in his deposition stated that no preservative is added whereas report of Central Food Laboratory mentions presence of preservative. I have also perused report. Learned Counsel 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.
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 7.4.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedbad, in Criminal Case No.970 of 2010, acquitting the respondent No.1 - accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks Top