AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant - Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, u/s
378 Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2009, rendered in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2004 by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedbad. The said case was registered against the present Respondent No. 1 - original accused for the
offence u/s 16(1)A(1) 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 shop of Respondent No. 1 - accused on
22.03.2004 at 12.00 noon and, in presence of panch, took sample of ""Chilly Powder"" 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(1) of the Act and thereby the accused
has committed an offence u/s 16(1)A(1) of the Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No. 23 of
2004.
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 Mrs. Jirga Jhaveri, 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 the learned Magistrate has erred in observing that
Rule 14 is not complied with and, therefore, non volatile ether extract is less by 2.70%, however, on the contrary ether extract cannot evaporate
without following the procedure. She has contended that Rule 14 of PFA Rule is complied with and there is no procedure prescribed for non-
compliance of Rule 14. She has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. She has also contended that the
offence punishable under the Act is 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. Looking to the papers and the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the
learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that Rule 14 is not complied with. The trial Court has rightly observed that since the sample
was taken in a brown paper, non-volatile ether extract is less. Looking to the papers, the trial Court has also rightly observed that there is breach
of Section 13(2) of the Act. 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 reasoning 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 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2004, acquitting the Respondent No. 1 - accused, is hereby confirmed.