In acquittal appeals, a Court cannot disturb findings if multiple reasonable conclusions arise, reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 74/2000 on 30.09.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1) and 7(5) and Section 16 of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

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

2.1 On 30.08.2000 at around 16.00 hours, Babubhai Malsing Ganva, Food Inspector, Ahmedabad visited Shri Shakti Dairy at Noble Nagar, Naroda, District Ahmedabad and found the accused present at the shop and he was selling different brands of pouches of milk for human consumption. After giving the notice, in Form VI, the Food Inspector purchased two pouches of milk of 500 ml each which were pasteurized, standardized Anup Shakti Milk and cleaned the pouches with a clean cloth and poured the milk from the pouches in a clean, dry, odorless, moistureless vessel and mixed the milk properly with a clean spoon, purchased 750 ml of milk from the accused and paid an amount of Rs. 11.25/- paise, as the sale price of the milk was Rs. 15 per litre. The milk was placed in three clean, dry, odorless, colorless, glass bottles in equal quantities and 20- 20 drops of formalin was placed in each bottle and the bottles were closed with a cork and sealed with a brass seal. The entire procedure was followed and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. After analysis, the report of the Public Analyst was received as the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the provision of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 the Local Health Authority gave the notice under Section 13.2 to the accused and after the sanction to file the complaint was given, the complaint was filed before the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 74 of 2000.

2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed. As the case was a private warrant case, the complainant stepped into the witness box and the precharge evidence was recorded at Exh. 7 and documentary evidence from Exh. 8 to Exh. 39 were produced on record. As there was enough evidence on record to frame a charge against the accused, a charge at Exh. 41 was framed and the plea was recorded at Exh. 42 and the further evidence of the complainant was recorded.

2.3 To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 1 witness and produced 31 documentary evidences on record in support of the case and after the complainant filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. 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 the accused from the cha