1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Food Inspector, Bhavnagar, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 rendered in Criminal Case No.229 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghogha. The said case was registered against the present respondents – original accused for the offence punishable under Section 2(1a)(a)(c)(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “PFA Act”) and under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1a)
(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghogha. 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, on 27.10.1998 the Police Inspector of CDivision Police Station, Bhavnagar, informed the complainant about Crime Register No.I223 of 1998 registered against the respondents accused for adulteration of seized edible articles. The complainant took sample of chilli powder (loose) from the seized articles. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report wherein it has been stated 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(1) of the Act and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 16(1a)(1) of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghogha, being Criminal Case No.229 of 1999.
3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – 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 erred in holding that the prosecution has not tried to collect information with regard to the ownership of place of the accused from where the sample was taken. It is contended that during the police proceedings and while taking sample the accused had neither taken any objection nor denied that he is not owner of the particular place.
5. He has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the sample sent for analysis was found adulterated as per Section 2(1a)(a)(c)(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereby committed breach of offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(2) and 16(1a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the utensils in which the sample was drawn was not dry and clean and thereby procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the Act is violated and benefit of doubt was given to the respondents – accused.
6. He has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered one fact that the report of the Public Analyst clearly indicates that the sample of chilli powder (loose) is adulterated as it does not comply with the standards and provisions of PFA Rules. 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.
7. 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. No complaint is filed against the accused for breach of Rule 50. It is law that for one offence two complaints cannot be filed. The complainant has not disclosed that what steps have been taken in pursuance of the offence registered with CDivision Police Station, Bhavnagar, being Crime Register No.I223 of 1998. 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.
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 29.11.2010, rendered in Criminal Case No.229 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghogha, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks