In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence remains until proven otherwise, and intervention is only warranted when the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 525/1997 on 31.03.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b) and 7(i) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and Rule 44AAA read with Section 7(v) and Section 16(1)(a) of The Food Adulteration Rules.

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 On 19.09.1996 at around 13.00 hours in the afternoon, the complainant - Food Inspector - Rathilal Shivram Patel visited M/s. Bhavani Provision Stores at Baradpura in Palanpur and found the accused no. 1 selling food items. On inquiring, it was found that the accused no. 2 was the owner of M/s. Bhavani provision stores and after the due procedure, the complainant - Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of black pepper from the tin in which around 6 kgs of black pepper was kept for sale. The 600 grams of black pepper was divided into three equal parts of 200 grams each and the three samples of black pepper were packed in clean and dry glass bottles and sealed and labeled and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Vadodara. The remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority and after the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample had tested positive for TLC Test for mineral oil of coated oil and did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The complainant filed the complaint under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b) and 7(i) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and Rule 44AAA read with Section 7(v) and Section 16(1)(a) of The Food Adulteration Rules which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 525 of 1997 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur.

2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed. As the offence was summary triable, the plea of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5 and the accused denied the contents of the complainant.

2.3 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 25 documentary evidences on record in support of the case and after the learned the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record an