1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Food Inspector, Junagadh, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 18.10.2011, rendered in Criminal Case No.488 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodinar. The said case was registered against the present respondent – original accused for the offence punishable under Section 2(ia) (a)(d)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “PFA Act”) and under Sections 7(1) and 7(5) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodinar. 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.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Food Inspector on 3.2.2000 alongwith panch witness visited the premises of the respondent – accused where the accused were doing his business. The complainant informed the accused that he wanted to take sample of Masco (loose) for analyze before the Public Analyst. The complainant issued notice in the prescribed Form No.6 as per Rule 12. 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 – original accused for breach of Section 7(1) and 7(5) of the Act and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 16 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodinar, being Criminal Case No.488 of 2000.
3. 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.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.L.B.Dabhi, 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. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has erroneously come to the conclusion by holding that the sample of Masco (loose) was not taken as it is but it was boiled. When the substance is in liquid then to take as sample it cannot be required to be boiled. It is submitted that as such there is no provision in the Act.
5. He has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the fact that as per opinion of the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory the sample of Masco (loose) was found adulterated and, therefore, by not considering this fact the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted the respondent – accused. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has erroneously come to the conclusion that before taking sample of Masco (loose) the complainant had not properly mixed up or did not boil. It is submitted that complainant while giving his evidence before the Court has categorically stated that the sample of Masco (loose) was taken in dry, clean and air tight utensils. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He has also contended that the offences punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large.
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. I have also gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court. I have also perused Rules 14 and 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that utensils in which the sample was drawn was not dry and clean and thereby procedure laid down under Rules 14 and 17 of the Act is violated. 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.
7. 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 respondent – 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.
8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 18.10.2011, rendered in Criminal Case No.488 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodinar, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks