IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapadvanj (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1A) (A) (M) (L), 2(IS)(K), Section 7(1)(5) and Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter be referred to as “the Rules”).

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 According to the complainant Food Inspector Shri Kanjibhai Virabhai, he was performed his duties as Food Inspector with the State of Gujarat, has visited the place of respondent – original accused situated at Azad Chowk, Kapadvanj. It is the case of the prosecution that during his visit of the shop of the respondent – accused, it was found that the respondent - accused was dealing in business of tobacco articles i.e. Tulsi Mix Gutka, Manekchand, Mahak, Zatpat, Kuber, Vimal etc. According to the complainant, after giving intimation in Form No.6, he has purchased six packets of “Tulsi Mix Gutka” by paying cost of Rs.630/- in the presence of the panch witness and after following due procedure as prescribed in the Act and Rules thereof has prepared the panchnama. It is the case of the prosecution that after collecting sample, he sent it to the Public Analyst, Bhuj for the purpose of analyze. It was examined by the officer of the Public Analyst and after analyzing the same, the Public Analyst arrived at the conclusion that the sample, which was purchased by the complainant, was not within the rules as prescribed under the Act and Rules thereof and the same was found to be adulterated. On receipt of report from the Public Analyst, Bhuj, the complainant Food Inspector had obtained permission to prosecute against the accused and after obtaining necessary sanction from the Local Health Authority, the private complaint came to be filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj under Sections 2(1A) (A) (M) (L), 2(IS)(K), Section 7(1)(5) and Section 16(1A) of the Act. It is further the case of the prosecution that after filing of the complaint, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the accused for the purpose of re-analyze. It is the case of the prosecution that the trial Court has recorded the evidence of the prosecution and after hearing both the sides was pleased to acquit the respondent – accused by judgment and order of acquittal for the alleged offence.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.D. K. Modi, learned advocate for the respondents – accused.

5. It has been submitted by Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat that trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused. She has also submitted that the trial Court has erred in holding that there is breach of requirement of Rule 14 of the Act. She has submitted that there was clear evidence on record to the fact that the sample of “Tulsi Mix Gutka” was adulterated and there is no breach of any provisions of the Act or the Rules on the part of the prosecution. She has submitted that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the same is prohibited and, therefore, this is one of the ground of misbranded of the sample. She has submitted that the trial Court has materially erred in holding that there is non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. She has submitted that the observation of the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample of Gutka was unfit for human consumption and was