The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 29.9.2001, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.26 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. The said case was registered against the present respondent Nos.1 & 2 - original accused for the offence under sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 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 visited the shop of respondent No.1 - accused on 26.9.1998 and took a sample of 600 gram watermelon-seeds for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama was also prepared. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said sample 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 respondents - original accused for breach of Section 7 of the Act and thereby the accused have committed an offence under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, being P.F.A.Case No.26 of 1999.
At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent No.1 - accused.
Learned Advocate Ms. 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. The learned Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the sample could have been adulterated when it was in custody of the Public Analyst. The learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the report was signed on 16.10.1998 and that it does not mean to say that the sample was tested on that day and the sample was adulterated from the day of taking sample.
She has contended that the learned Judge while giving benefit of Section 13(2) to the accused ought to have considered that the accused never applied for the re-testing of the sample and so his right gets abated. Moreover, the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the sample was not only adulterated but, it was rotten and insects were found in the sample.
She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly interpreted Section 2(f) and has only relied on intimation at Ex.24 that there was no insects mentioned and so it does not fell into Section 2(f) but, he ought to have considered that the report of the Public Analyst does say that the sample was rotten and there were insects in it and thus it does not fall under Section 2(f).
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. The learned Judge has rightly observed that due to delay in analysis there may be possibility of growing insects in watermelon-seeds. I have also perused report. 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 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 respondent No.1 - 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 29.9.2001, rendered in P.F.A.Case No.26 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, acquitting the respondent No.1 - accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks