AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya
By way of this revision application u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the State has challenged the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umargam in Criminal Case No. 189 of 2000, below Exh.7, whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the said application and acquitted the opponents accused from the offence alleged against them under Sections 2(ia)(a) read with Rule 62, Section 2(ix)(k) read with Rule 32 and Section 7(i), (ii) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act).
The facts arising out of this application are that the opponents herein are the manufactures of Gutkha, bearing trademark ''Zatpat'' in packed pouch under the name and style of M/S. Chetna Zarda Company, having its factory at GIDC, Umargam, Dist. Valsad. It appears from the record that on 20.05.1998 at about 11:30 a.m. the food inspector visited the factory premises of the opponents and purchased Gutkha ''Zatpat'' brand in pouch packaging for the purposes of analysis. After following due process, the sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst at Rajkot. It further transpires from the record that on analysis of the said product-gutkha, the public analyst opined that the sample was found misbranded u/s 2(ix)(k) of the Act. A complaint came to be filed on the basis of such report of public analyst before the competent court i.e. the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umargam and the same was registered as Criminal Case No. 189 of 2000.
The opponents appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed the application below Exh.7 and, inter alia, prayed that no case is made out against the opponents, more particularly on the fact that the report of the analyst that the product-gutkha is misbranded is beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions of the Act. After hearing the parties the said application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision application is filed by the State.
Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the applicant-State is that the Court below erred in concluding that ''Gutkha'' does not fall within the provisions of the Act. However, I find that there is nothing on record to show that ''Gutkha'' has been misbranded. No prescribed standard has been provided in the Act with respect to ''Gutkha'' nor there is any provision to include ''Gutkha'' as a food article.
Considering the facts of the case and the provisions of the Act, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in discharging the opponents from the alleged offence in question. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this application.
Consequently, the application is rejected. RULE is discharged.