Acquittals in criminal cases can only be overturned if the trial court's decision is manifestly erroneous or lacks legal justification; the prosecution must prove compliance with statutory requirements.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.4109 of 1993 on 28.07.2021, 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(1)(i-a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PFA Act’) and Rule-29 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “FA Rules”).

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 18-08-1993, at around 10.15am, Punamchand Revabhai Panchal, Food Inspector, Vadodara, went to “Tulja Provision Store” situated in Marcha Gali, at Padra, and found the accused no.1 Harivadhan Shanabhai Rana present at the shop. After giving the notice of taking a sample, he found that in one tin box, 4 kg of loose turmeric powder was kept for selling, and in the presence of a panch witness, purchased 600 gms of loose turmeric powder for Rs.15/- which was measured by the accused no.1 with a spoon and placed on a clean paper, and the 600 gms of turmeric powder was divided equally in three portions and placed in three clean, dry, moistureless, odourless bottles, and sealed and sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara. It was found that the accused no.2 was the owner of “Tulja Provision Store”, and after the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample had pink, orange and yellow soluble coal tar colours detected, and the sample revealed the presence of characteristic debris of turmeric, mixed with plenty of rice starch, and the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The remaining 2 samples were sent to the Local Health Authority as per rules, and the Local Health Authority gave the notice to the accused, and after the sanction for filing of the complaint was received, the complaint was filed by the complainant Punamchand Revabhai Panchal before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4109 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 Punamchand Revabhai Panchal stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.1 and produced the documentary evidences at Exh.15 to Exh.44. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.54 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.55 and Exh.56 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3. During pendency of the trial, the accused no. 2 – Naranbhai Durabhai Rana had expired and his death certificate was produced at Exh.98, and accordingly, the case qua the accused no.2 came to be disposed of as abated.

2.4. After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the further statement of the accused unde