( 1 ) THE Appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 9-2-1996 passed by learned JMFC, Banvad, in Criminal Case no. 346 of 1985 acquitting the accused / present respondent of the offence under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). This Court [coram: A. N. Divecha, J] granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 30-10-1996.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant in short is that the Food inspector original complainant on 9-4-1985 visited the shop of the accused along with helper Shri. K. B. Bang and notified his intention of collecting beverage known in vernacular as SLemon SodawÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wĉâ‚ w¢â‚Ââ„¢wÆ’i’w‚u¢wÆ’u¢w¢â‚Âc¡w‚uÂwĉ₦w‚u¡wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚uÂ. He purchased 3 bottles of lemon soda on payment of Rs. 18-60 and obtained receipt thereof from the vendor-accused. The sample was collected in presence of panch witness Shri. Aruna Darsi. Notice under rule 12 Form-VI was issued indicating his intention to send sample article to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The bottles were not open by the Food Inspector and he applied the requisite seal on the bottles keeping them in the same condition. The bottles were wrapped and sealed in strict compliance with the provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). The seal of Local Health authority was also affixed on the bottles containing Sr. No. 8/fd/ar/jt/jam dated 3-1-1985. The panchnama was drawn of the incident of collecting the sample which bears the signature of accused and the panch witness. The notice under form No. VI is produced at exhibit-44. The panchnama is produced at exhibit-47. On 10-4-1985 memorandum was prepared in six copies, a copy thereof is produced before the court at exhibit-48. Copy of the memorandum along with one sealed bottle of sample food article was properly packed in a wooden box and sent to Public Analyst for analysis at Bhuj and remaining two parts of sample bottles were sent to Local health Authority at Rajkot as required under the law. The receipt received from Public Health Authority is produced at exhibit-49 and the receipt from the Public Analyst is produced at exhibit-50. The Public Analyst indicated in his report that the sample food article was not in conformity with the standards laid down under Item A. 01. 01 of carbonated water under Rule-1955 as the element of saccharine should not have exceeded 100 ppm, which was found to be 135 ppm. The report of the Public Analyst produced at exhibit-55 along with relevant papers were submitted to local Health Authority for obtaining appropriate consent for lodging prosecution. The Local Health Authority accorded the sanction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst and the relevant documents submitted to him. The complaint came to be lodged against the present respondent original accused. After lodging the complaint the information of the same was sent to Local Health Authority on 7-11-1985. Local health Authority therefore issued notice under section 13 (2) of the Act, with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst, affording an opportunity to the accused to have the sample further tested at the end of Central Food Laboratory. The acknowledgment card showing its receipt is produced at exhibit-56.

( 3 ) THE trial court drew charge at exhibit-70 on 6-7-1994 and recorded plea of denial at exhibit-71 of the accused. The trial court has framed as many as five issues; namely (1) whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that the complainant Food Inspector had competence and authority to collect the sample food article from the accused on 9-4- 1985; (2) whether the prosecution proves it beyond doubt that the soda lemon sample food article collected from the accused on 9-4-1985 was not in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document