Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandulal Vitthaldas Ratandhayra & on 28 April, 2015
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/1265/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 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....Appellant(s)
Versus
CHANDULAL VITTHALDAS RATANDHAYRA &
4....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS HANSA PUNANI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN S POPAT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3 - 5
MR MD MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3 - 5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 28/04/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the Page 1 of 5 R/CR.A/1265/2004 JUDGMENT appellant - State under Section 378 of Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 3.5.2004, rendered in Criminal Case No.607 of 1995 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Veraval. The said case was registered against the present respondents - original accused for the offence under sections 7(i), 7(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant 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 complainant Food Inspector purchased sample of 40 gram filtered oil (Amidhara Brand) from the firm of the accused for the purpose of analysis. After following due procedure, the said sample was sent to the public analyst, Vadodara, for analysis, who reported that the sample does not confirm the standard and provisions laid down under the Act. After obtaining written permission, the complainant filed complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Veraval. 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. Page 2 of 5
R/CR.A/1265/2004 JUDGMENT
4. Learned advocate Mr. Chitan Popat appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondent No.2 Dayaljibhai Topandas Parvani has expired and the copy of the death certificate of said respondent is produced, which is ordered to be taken on record. In view of this position, present appeal is abetted qua the respondent No.2.
5. Learned APP Mrs. Punani appearing on behalf of the appellant 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 not appreciated that as per the report of public analyst, the sample was found adulterated. From the evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence, it is established that the prosecution has proved that the accused persons have committed alleged offence. She also submitted that the prosecution followed the provisions under Rule 14 of the 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.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Chitan Popat for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Modi for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal Page 3 of 5 R/CR.A/1265/2004 JUDGMENT and he submitted that learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated 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. In this regard, learned advocate Mr. Modi also cited the decisions of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. (i) 842 of 2009 dated 28.1.2010, (ii) 900 of 1998 dated 18.8.2009 (iii) 448 of 2011 dated 5.4.2011 as well as the decisions reported in 2007(1) FAC 461 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Barkatali Pyarali Hasnani and ors. and 2007(2) FAC 35 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rambhai Karsanbhai Malam.
7. 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 analysis report. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. It appears that the sample was taken on 22.4.1994 and the analysis was made on 26.9.1995 and for what reason, the analysis was made after such a long period, is not explained by the complainant. The sample is of edible oil and therefore, the perfect analysis after such a long period is not possible. I have also perused report. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. Learned APP is unable to convince this court as to Page 4 of 5 R/CR.A/1265/2004 JUDGMENT whether the prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In view of this position, I am of the view that present case is covered up by the decisions cited by the learned advocate Mr. Modi for the respondents. Hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 3.5.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Veraval, in Criminal Case No.607 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith. Present appeal is abetted qua the respondent No.2.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 5 of 5