AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P.Dholaria, J
The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2011 rendered
by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No.807 of 2002, whereby the
present respondent-original accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 2(9)A and 7(2)(5) read with Section 16 of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The brief facts of the case is that on 09.04.2002, the complainant-Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent-accused along with panch,
where the respondent-accused was present. The complainant after issuing oral as well as written notice in form No.VII to the respondent-accused,
purchased 45 pouch of Ozonized Zen Natural Mineral Water upon payment of Rs.13.50. In presence of panch witness, 15 pouch were procured and
sealed in three clean bag, which were thereafter, closed by cork so as to prevent leakage and to prevent entry of moisture into the bottle. Thereafter,
seals were applied in accordance with rules. On sample was forwarded on the next day with a memorandum, Form No.VII to the Public Analyst,
Vadodara and two parts of samples were sent to Local Health Authority for analysis. The Public Analyst opined in his report vide Exh.51 that the
sample of Mineral Water was not in accordance with the standards laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, after
obtaining consent of Local Health Authority as required under Section 20 of the Act, the complainant-Food Inspector filed complaint in the court of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Surendranagar. 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 statement of 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 21.04.2011 rendered by the learned 2nd Additional Senior
Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No.807 of 2002, the appellant has preferred the present appeal
before this Court.
Heard learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Murali N. Devnani for the respondent-accused.
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 the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the matter shall stand revived
automatically.
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.