JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad in Food Case No. 8 of 2003 acquitting the respondent-original accused from the offence punishable under section 2(1-a), (a), and (j)(m), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and there by for breach of offences under section 7(1), 7(5) read with Rule 5, punishable under section 16(1a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present respondent accused was selling chilli powder, turmeric powder and others and on 04/04/2003 the complainant-Food Inspector alongwith helper in the presence of the Panch Witness visited the shop of the accused and upon making inquiry, the respondent was the owner and chili powder duly grind was lying there in a bag. The complainant orally informed the accused that he wanted to analyze this before the Public Analyst and therefore to purchase the same and issue Notice in the prescribed Form No. 6 as per Rule 12. Thereafter, the complainant had purchased 500 Grams of chill powder and paid the amount for that. The complainant has obtained the signature of the accused in a receipt regarding receiving of amount Thereafter, the said sample of chill powder was stored in three airtight, cleaned and smell-less bottles and sealed after following due procedure of law in the presence of the Panch Witness The complainant also obtained signatures of panchasa in the panchnama, he drew at the time of taking sample. Thereafter, he sent the samples to the Public Analysi, Bhuj for analysis. The Public Analyst after analyzing the sample opined as under:

"The sample of chili powder is adulterated as it does not comply with the standards and provisions of PFA Act, 1954, as the total ash was more and nonvolatile ether extract was less and presence of rice starch was found."

After the report of the Public Analyst, the complainant obtained the permission of Local Health Authority and filed the complaint against the present accused in the Court of learned 2 Additional Civil Judge and JMEC, Nadiad of Food Case No 8 of 2003. The learned 2 Additional Civil Judge JMFC, Nadiad vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 acquitted the respondent accused person from the offences.

2.1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State.

3. Learned APP Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and evidence adduced by the prosecution. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against him. That the prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed offence alleged against him. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the report of the Public Analyst and evidence of the complainant which clearly connects the accused with commission of the offence. That the trial court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sample sent for analysis was found adulterated. That the trial court erred in holding that the sanction has been given without application of mind and without appreciating papers. The trial court erred in holding that while drawing the sample, mandatory procedure prescribed under section 14 of the Act are not followed. That the trial court erred in not believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in