JUDGMENT :

1. Cause-list shows that rule qua respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not received back. Considering the age of the matter, which is of 2008, the Court proceeded with the matter and heard the same finally.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 28.02.2002, passed in Criminal Case No. 3091 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipal), Rajkot, recording the acquittal.

3. Facts in brief are that on 10.03.1993, the complainant - Food Inspector visited a shop namely Bengal Sweets, Laxminagar, Rajkot where the respondents - accused were present. The complainant took the sample of milk and sent the same for analysis and in report, found the said milk to be adulterated and accordingly, the accused having found committing breach of the provisions of Sections 7(1) r/w. Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, complaint came be to registered against them.

3.1 Upon complaint being filed and pursuant to the summons issued, the respondents - accused appeared before the Court. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No. 3.

4.1 The learned advocate for the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents - accused.

4.2 The learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Further, in the analysis report, adulteration was found in the milk and accordingly, the offence in question was registered against the accused, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider this material aspect of the matter and thereby, has committed error in acquitting the accused.

4.3 The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

4.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

4.5 The learned advocate for the appellant, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, has committed an error in recording acquittal. It is submitted that though all the ingredients of the offence alleged had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge did not believe the same and therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffers from material illegality, perversity and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.

4.6 Thus, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted although cogent and material evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused and