An acquittal will not be disturbed unless compelling errors are evident; the presumption of innocence heavily favors the accused in such cases.

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 543 of 2000 on 28.12.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 7(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood 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 03.02.2000, the complainant Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher, visited Hari Dugdalay, situated in Trikamrai Chowk area, Kodinar, with panch witness Jivabhai Bhayabhai Jadhav. The accused was present at the shop, and after the complainant introduced himself, he found that the accused was selling milk and milk products, and found three packed tins of ghee of 15 kgs each, and around 10 kilos of ghee in an open tin. After the notice, as per Form-VI was given, the complainant purchased 500 grams of ghee, after stirring the ghee that was in the open tin, and took it in a clean and dry steel utensil, and paid the amount of Rs.60/- to the accused. The ghee was placed in three transparent, clean, dry bottles in equal parts, and the bottles were properly sealed, and as per the procedure, a sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Junagadh, and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst was received, which showed that the sample of ghee did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, and after the due procedure, the Local Health Authority informed the accused and gave a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and after the sanction was received, a complaint was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar, under Section 2(i-a),(a), (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rule 50, and Section 7(1), (5), and Rule-16 of the Act.

2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copy of the complaint was 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 Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.24 and produced the documentary evidences from Exh.24 to Exh.42. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.48 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.49, 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 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.

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 learn