1. Though other side is served, but none is present.
2. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 20.8.2002, rendered in Criminal Case No.2188 of 1993 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh. The said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Section 7(2) and 7(5) as well as Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “PFA Act”) in the Court of learned Magistrate. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.
3. According to the case of the appellant State, the Food Inspector collected the sample of Chilly Powder (loose) from the accused. The said sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst. 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 was not found as per the provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.” Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondent – accused in the Court of learned Magistrate, being Criminal Case No.2188 of 1993.
4. 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.
5. Learned advocate Mrs.Punani appearing on behalf of the appellant State has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has also contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the sample in fact was not found as per the provisions laid down under the Act. She has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He has also contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large. There was violation of Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act. She also submitted that merely panch witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside. She further submitted that the complainant is a Food Inspector, being Government employee, collected sample in the interest of public at large and therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant. She relied upon the decision in case of Ranchhodbhai Keshavlal Kadia Vs. Damodar Valjibhia Mistry and Another reported in 1986 GLH 917 and submitted that judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing Appeal.
6. 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. From the record, it appears that the sample of Chilly powder was taken in presence of independent witness, is not proved as per the provisions of the Act. It also appears that there were breach of mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. I have perused the case referred by the learned APP reported in 1986 GLH 917. In that case, the panchas who were present at the time of taking sample and they were independent panchas, examined during the course of trial. I have perused the provision of Section 10(7) of the Act which is as under:
Section 10(7) :
“Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (4) or sub section (6), he shall (call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures.)”
7. Here in this case, there is no any independent witness, examined during the course of trial. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there was violation of Section 10(7) of the Act. The complainant did not take the sample in the presence of independent witness. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused.
8. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings 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.
9. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh, in Criminal Case No. 2188 of 1993, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)