The presumption of innocence and the requirement for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food Inspector – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 30th January, 2012, rendered in Criminal Case No.46 of 2002 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 – original accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “PFA Act”) in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent – accused of the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 - accused.

2. As per the case of the prosecution on 4th May, 2022 at about 1:00 p.m. the appellant (complainant Food Inspector), with his peon Haribhai C. Parmar visited the shop of accused – respondent no.1, Pawan Parlour, 9, Arjun Complex, Naroda, Ahmedabad. At that point of time, the accused was present at the place and was doing the business of selling milkshake. The appellant called one Shri Vipulbhai N. Parikh, who was passing from there and gave his introduction to the accused and Panch as a food inspector of Municipal Corporation and checked the place and thereafter purchased 900 gms. of Mango Milkshake from the shop. The appellant further inquired about the ownership of the business and documentary evidence, however the accused informed that he is the owner of the shop but did not produce any material in that regard.

2.1 It is also the case of the prosecution that 900 gms Mango Milkshake which was taken as sample from the accused were sealed and packed properly as rules and accordingly sent one part of the sample for analysis to the Public analyst, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation with the peon Shri Jayantibhai G. Solanki. The other two samples were sent to the L.H.A. (Local Health Authority).

2.2 As per the report of the Public Analyst, the said sample of Milkshake is found adulterate, therefore, after seeking necessary sanction a complaint was lodged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act against the respondent no.1 being Criminal Case no.46 of 2022.

2.3 After evidence was over and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing of arguments of both the sides, the learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent no.1 – accused and hence the present appeal.

3. Mr. Harsh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. R.J. Rawal Associates for the Food Inspector – appellant has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper.

4. He has also contended that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused on the ground that there is inconsistancy in the deposition of the complainant. It is also contended that synthetic food colour is not permitted beyond prescribed limit as per the provisions of PFA Act and the learned trial Judge committed error in not appreciating the Rule 29 of PFA Rules in its correct perspective. It is also contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst and the evidence, which are alleged against the respondent no.1 – accused are directly connected with the health of public at large, but the learned Trial Judge by ignoring all these aspects has erred in acquitting the respondent no.1 – accused. He therefore, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court and allow the appeal.

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board, Saharanpur reported in 1969(2) SCC 371.

6. Mr. M. D. Modi, learned advocate for the respondent no.1