Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Gopalbhai Khodidas Babariya & 1 Other(s)

R.P.Dholaria, J

The appellant â€" Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the

judgment and order dated 27.05.2010 rendered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.24590 of 2016,

whereby the present respondent no.2-original accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)A(i) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954.

The brief facts of the case is that on 30.08.2006 at 1:30 p.m., the complainant and his peon visited Sarita Food Products situated at: 314, Mayur

Estate, Nikol Gaam Road, Khodiyar Mandir, Ahmedabad and at that time, the accused was present and was doing his business. Therefore,

complainant called Mr. Rameshbhai Govindbhai Patel as an independent panch witness and introduced himself as a Food Inspector. At the time of

inspection, the complainant inquired about food product and its quality and price to the accused and it was informed that it is frymes and price of 1

kilogram is Rs.19 and in presence of panch, the complainant paid Rs.17.10 in cash and purchased 900 grams of frymes, which was kept in empty,

clean and dry brown paper. Thereafter, complainant informed the accused by written intimation that he is going to send this sample for public analysis

and thereafter, complainant inquired about ownership of business, but the accused did not produce any documentary evidence. Thereafter, the sample

was transferred into equal parts and poured with spoon in three equal glass labeled bottles which were sealed by air tight cork and after following due

procedure of sealing and packing, one part of the sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for analysis and

as per the report under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the sample was found adulterated. Therefore, after following due procedure

of sanction, complaint came to be filed against the accused. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The

accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statementsof accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the

respondent-accused.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated dated 27.05.2010 rendered by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.24590 of 2016, the appellant â€" Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has preferred the

present appeal before this Court.

Heard learned advocate Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant â€" Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for

respondent no.1-org.accused and learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani for the respondent no.2-State.

Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for the respondent no.1 pointed out that the sample of wheat mamra (loose) was taken out by

the inspection team. The result of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, clearly indicates that Tartrazine - 54ppm Sunset Yelllow â€" 115ppm was found

present, though the standard prescribed is maximum at 100. Therefore, violation alleged to have been found is not harmful to hygiene and in such

cases, in the General Lok Adalat, previously, such matters came to be compromised by imposing litigation cost upon the respondent-accused.

As such, on going through the records, it is noticed that the offence alleged against the original accused-respondent under the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954 is not serious in nature and the punishment or penalty prescribed for such offence is not substantial, and in view of the

provisions of Section 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, it is compoundable under Section 69 of the said Act.

Accordingly, this Court is satisfied and imposes litigation cost of Rs.5000/- upon the private respondent-accused to be deposited with High Court

Legal Services Committee, within a period of four weeks from receipt of this order, failing which, the matter shall stand revived automatically.

Upon deposition of litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- by the respondent-accused, High Court Legal Services Committee shall transmit the said amount to

the appellantâ€"Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

With the above observations and directions, present appeal stands disposed of. However, disposing of this matter will not affect any connected

matters arising out of the same, incidental or any other proceedings, filed or to be filed before any other court. It is also required to be noted that this

order will not be treated as precedent in any future cases for reference.