The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict construction of the law, the requirement to show that contradictions or discrepancies have caused prejudice, and the principles of liberal interpretation of provisions relating to giving notice. The judgment also emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-original complainant challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Criminal Case No. 56 of 2003 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad dated 13.04.2006 recording acquittal of the respondent accused for the offence under Section 16(1)(9)(I) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal.

2. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dilbar Contractor for Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the appellant-original complainant, learned Advocate Shri D.K. Modi for the Respondent-No. 1 and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent No. 2-State.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Dilbar Contractor for Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the appellant-original complainant referred to the papers and submitted that whether the acquittal could have been recorded for the reasons or the grounds mentioned, is required to be considered. She emphasized that the observations have been made that the panch-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution on the extent of variety of ice-cream samples. She submitted that the approach cannot be so casual. Learned Advocate Ms. Contractor referred to the testimony of the Food Inspector-P.W. No. 4. She submitted that the manner in which, the samples have been taken, is also stated and he has narrated about the entire procedure. She therefore submitted that it cannot be said that the provisions of law and mandatory provisions are not complied with. Learned Counsel Ms. Contractor also referred to the testimony of P.W. No. 2 (peon) and submitted that he has corroborated the testimony of Food Inspector-P.W. No. 1 on material aspect about taking of samples and applying the seals. He has denied the suggestion that he has not taken part in sealing and packing. Learned Advocate Ms. Contractor therefore submitted that the evidence of the complainant corroborated by the testimony of P.W. No. 2, who had accompanied him, has been brushed aside. She has also referred to the testimony of P.W. No. 3 Panch-witness and submitted that he has confirmed that Food Inspector had made packing and sealing with the help of peon and thereafter he had sent it for the laboratory test. She has also referred to the judgment recording the reasons for the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below and submitted that the reasons recorded are contrary to the material and it has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. She has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 56 in the case of Prem Ballab vs. State (Delhi Administration) and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 1121 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hanif. Learned Advocate Ms. Contractor has also referred to the judgment of this High Court reported in 1999 (1) GLR 452 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Gurukrupa Kariyana Stores & Ors. In support of her submission, she has further referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 1990 Cr.L.J. 2452 in the case of S.D. Nagdeve, Food Inspector, Amravati Vs. Sudhakar Raghunath Burange. Learned Advocate Ms. Contractor strenuously submitted that contradictions or the discrepancies must be shown to have caused prejudice or they have affected the root of the matter. She submitted that unless it is shown that the prejudice is caused, the benefit of doubt would not be justified.

4. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani submitted that even if the panch-witness is hostile the evidence has to be appreciated and full inspection has to be believed. He submitted that appropriate order may be passed.

5. Learned Advocate Shri D.K. Modi for the respondent-accused submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is not erroneous. He submitted that while appreciating the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court has not committed any error and therefore, the appropriate order may be passed. The reference wa