JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - State challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2013, passed in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 27.08.2004, Assistant Commissioner of Food and Drugs Control Administration, Junagadh received a message from Bantwa Police Station, Taluka: Manavadar that they had seized Deshi Ghee (loose) from the residence of the respondent No. 2 herein and requested to examine the same and hence, the Food Inspector, after getting permission from the Manavadar Court for taking sample, got present before him the persons in whose presence the said Ghee was seized and recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 – accused No. 1. Thereafter, sample was taken and sent for analysis, following due procedure and in report, found the same to be adulterated. Accordingly, the respondents - accused having found committing the breach of the provisions of Sections 2(i-a), (a), (c), (m), 7(1) and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), committed the offence punishable under Section 16 of the said Act, and hence, a complaint came to be registered against them.

2.1 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.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State – original complainant and learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the respondents – accused.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is 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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 the case is supported through the evidence on record. Further, in the analysis report, adulteration was found in the Ghee 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. Besides, so longer as the collection of sample and sending the same for analysis are concerned, the same were as per the procedure prescribed under the law and accordingly, the learned trial Judge has taken the hyper-technical view of the matter and thereby, has committed error in acquitting the accused.

3.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

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

3.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 proper