S. R. BRAHMBHATT, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsels of the parties. The Appellant State of Gujarat has preferred leave to appeal and appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned CJM, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2000 dated 16. 12. 2003 acquitting the accused/present respondents of the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act. (herein after referred to as the PFA Act for brevity ).

( 2 ) THE impugned order of acquittal is essentially based upon the findings that the prosecution has failed in establishing its case beyond doubt against the respondents/ original accused. The infirmities noticed by the trial court and recorded in its judgment are treated as vitiating the case of the prosecution. Learned counsels were permitted to address this Court at length on merits of the appeal at the admission stage. Learned app Shri Patel has produced on record the relevant papers pertaining to the Criminal case No. 23 of 2000 and addressed this Court on merits at length.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to filing of this leave to appeal and appeal are deserved to be set out as under.

( 4 ) THE original complainant Food Inspector while discharging his duty as such on 2. 8. 1999 at 13. 30 hrs reached Bhoomi Dairy, at that time one tempo bearing registration no. GTE-8189 was parked nearby. The tempo was examined as it was carrying milk packets weighing 500 ml each of ratna shakti Standard Milk Brand. The owner of bhoomi dairy Shri Iswarbhai Manilal Patel was requested to witness the proceedings. On his willingness to act as panch and in his presence the tempo owner gave his name and said that the tempo belongs to him and he was selling milk. He said that the milk packets of Ratna Dairy were brought by him directly from the Ratna Dairy, who was producer and seller of the milk. He said that he was the distributor of ratna Shakti milk. The Food Inspector deposed before the court that he purchased two packets of standard milk weighing 500 ml, after issuing notice under Rule 12 in form No. VI that the said samples were to be taken for examination by Public Analyst. The price of Rs. 9. 75 was paid for purchasing the milk and receipt was obtained which was produced at exhibit-13. The milk packets were containing writing that it was ratna Standard milk. The packer was ratna Dairy, Vijapur. The milk in first instance was collected in the vessel known as thapeli in common parlance and 250 ml milk was returned back to the vendor and 750 ml milk was stirred and after adding requisite amount of preservative formalin, milk was collected in glass bottles. The glass bottles were sealed in presence of panch. Panchnama was drawn. One part of the sample food article (milk) was sent to the public Analyst. The remaining two parts were sent to Local Health Authority. The memorandum and specimen copy of seal was prepared and was also sent to Public analyst at Bhuj. The sample was opined to be adulterated as it was not in conformity with the standards laid down under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Rules for brevity ). Therefore the papers were sent for obtaining sanction for launching prosecution against the accused for committing offence under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the PFA act. The sanction was granted on 7. 1. 2000 which is produced on record. Local Health authority was informed that the complaint was filed on 7. 1. 2000 vide covering letter which is produced at exhibit-38. Notice under Section 13 (2) came to be issued to the accused. Office copy is at exhibit-39. All the four accused were served notice under section 13 (2) of the Act and postal acknowledgment receipts are at exhibit 40 to 43. The accused were summoned. As they denied the charge, the trial commenced. The statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein also they denied the case o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document