The absence of corroborative evidence from the Food Inspector and breaches of procedural rules asserted the validity of the acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

JUDGEMENT

1.The acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("the Act" for short) recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara vide judgement dated April 23, 1990 rendered in Criminal Case No. 2093 of 1988 is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal which is filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. 2.Mr. P.B. Jadav, who was Food Inspector had visited the shop of the respondent on March 18,1988 and purchased 375 gram of groundnut oil for the purpose of analysis and paid price of the same. After various formalities, one of the sample bottles was sent to the public analyst for analysis. The report of the public analyst indicated that the sample analysed was adulterated. Therefore, Mr.P.B.Jadav, had filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara against the respondent. On appreciation of evidence led by the Food Inspector, the learned Magistrate held that the uncorroborated evidence of the Food Inspector was not reliable for the purpose of convicting the respondent of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Counsel found that written consent to prosecute was granted by the competent Authority without application of mind and, therefore, was bad in law. The learned Magistrate noticed that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet were not sent separately to the public analyst, though required by Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to benefit of doubt. In view of the above referred to conslusions, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent by judgement dated April 23, 1990 giving rise to the present appeal.

3.Mr. D.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that all the relevant materials were placed before the Authority who had granted written consent to prosecute and, therefore, written consent to prosecute could not have been invalidated on the ground that it suffers from the vice of non application of mind.

The learned Counsel contented that it is not necessary that the evidence of the Food Inspector should be corroborate any other independent evidence and, therefore, the respondent could not have been acquitted on the ground that the evidence of Food Inspector was not corroborated by any other evidence on record. What was claimed was that there is no breach of Rule 18 of the Rules and, therefore, no benefit could have been granted to the respondent on the ground that mandatory rule was not complied with by the Food Inspector. According to the learned Counsel for the State Government, the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the respondent are not well founded and, therefore, the appeal should be accepted.

4.Mr. R.D. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that in the present case, the panch witness who is not examined to support the evidence of Food Inspector, and as the panchnama prepared while taking sample for analysis is not on record, the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in not placing reliance on uncorroborated testimony of the Food Inspector. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, written consent to prosecute was granted without taking into consideration the relevant facts and, therefore, the same is rightly invalidated by the learned Magistrate. What was claimed was that the Food Inspector had not sent a copy of the memorandum and