Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and evidence adduced by the prosecution. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents -

accused from the charges levelled against him. That the R/CR.A/814/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2022 prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed offence alleged against him. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the report of the Public Analyst and evidence of the complainant which clearly connects the accused with commission of the offence. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sample sent for analysis was found adulterated. That the trial court erred in holding that the sanction has been given without application of mind and without appreciating papers. The trial court erred in holding that while drawing the sample, mandatory procedure prescribed under section 14 of the Act are not followed. That the trial court erred in not believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its true spirit.

Making above submissions, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

4. Mr.K.D. Shroff, learned advocate for the respondent - original accused has submitted that there is hardly any substance in the submissions of learned APP. There is no admissible evidence on record connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and evidence. That the deposition of R/CR.A/814/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2022 the witnesses and evidence of the prosecution adduced by the prosecution are not reliable. That the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is inherent lecuna in the report of the Public Analyst As held by the learned Magistrate, the sanction was granted without application of mind. As held by the learned Magistrate while drawing the sample, mandatory procedure prescribed under section 14 of the Act was not followed.

6.1. It appears that the sanction Ex.32 was given without application of mind and without appreciating the papers and therefore, it cannot be valid and legal as per section 20 of the Act and therefore the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

6.2. It appears that the complainant has not proved the prosecution case from documentary evidence produced before the Court and therefore also benefit of which requires to be given to the respondent accused.

6.3. Further, so far as the evidence with regard to the utensils is concerned, it has been brought on record that the utensil in which in which the sample was drawn, was not dry and clean and therefore, procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the Act is violated and benefit of which was rightly given to the accused. Furthermore, it appears that while drawing sample under section 14, mandatory procedure has not been followed. Even from the deposition of the Food Inspector - complainant, who has been examined at Ex.13, it cannot be said that the sample was found to be adulterated. It also appears that the Panch witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no reason given by the Local Health authorities for filing complaint.

R/CR.A/814/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2022 6.4. It appears that the there is no admissible evidence on record connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and evidence.

7. That the deposition of the witnesses and evidence of the prosecution adduced by the prosecution are not trust worthy. There is inherent lecuna in the report of the Public Analyst. As held by the learned Magistrate, the sanction was granted without application of mind. As held by the learned Magistrate while drawing the sample, mandatory procedure prescribed under section 14 of the Act was not followed. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the That the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.