In criminal appeals, acquittals should not be overturned unless substantial evidence indicates manifest error, upholding the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned 5^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.8131 of 1993 on 03.03.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused from the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia)(a)(b)(c), 7(i), 7(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 29-06-1993, at around 12:00 hours, the complainant Amratbhai Govindbhai Patel - Food Inspector, visited M/s. Rahimi Kirana Stores situated in village Gola, Taluka Palanpur, District Banaskantha. The accused no.1 was present in the shop and was selling groceries and other items. The Food Inspector inquired from him about the ownership of the shop and it was found that the accused no.2 was the owner, and after the due procedure, the complainant, Food Inspector Amratbhai Govindbhai Patel took 375 grams loose groundnut oil from a 15 kilogram tin of groundnut oil, from which, it was being sold. The groundnut oil was divided in three parts and placed in three glass bottles and all the samples were properly packed and one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Vadodara and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Vadodara. After the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and after the due procedure, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, which was registered as Criminal Case No.8131 of 1993.

2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. As the case was a private warrant triable case, the complainant Amratbhai Govindbhai Patel stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.11 and produced documentary evidences at Exh.12 to Exh.35. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.38 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.39 and Exh.40 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3. After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded wherein in the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia)(a)(b)(c), 7(i), 7(v) and 16 of the Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, 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, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Cou