IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 518 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus JETHALAL PRITAMDAS KHETANI & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present revision applicant preferred by the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2012, dated 27.11.2012, whereby the appeal of the present respondent – original accused No.1 and 2 came to be allowed and judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, passed in Criminal Case No.3522 of 2004 convicting the respondents – original accused for the breach of Section 7 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short “ PFA”) and sentencing to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, was set aside.

2. The facts of the prosecution, as revealed from the record, in nutshell, are as follows:-

2.1. That original accused No.1 was the distributor, No.2 was the owner of Santosh Milk House, No.3, is the nominee of the manufacturing firm and No.4 is the firm. The original complainant – Food Inspector had visited the shop of respondent – original accused No.2 and purchased the sample of Narmada Pasteurinzed Standard Milk. After doing certain formalities of packing sealing, drawn the Panchnama and send the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample does not conform to the standards and provisions of the Act and Rules as the percentage of milk fat was less than the prescribed as also mild solid not fat was found less than the prescribed. After getting sanction, the complainant – Food Inspector has lodged the complaint. The evidence of complainant was recorded and after the charge was framed and recording of evidence of complainant and Panch witness the having concluded the trial, the learned Magistrate found that accused to have committed breach of Section 2(1-a) as also Section 7 (1) of the PFA which is punishable under Section 16 (1) of the PFA and sentenced original accused No.1 and No.2 to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The learned Magistrate acquitted the original accused No.3 and No.4 from the charges leveled against them.

2.2. Against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar passed in Criminal Case No.3522 of 2004, the respondent herein – the original accused No.1 and 2 had preferred an appeal before the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, wherein the learned Session Court has allowed the said appeal and has set aside the judgment and order of trial Court and the respondent -accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Hence, the present revision application by the State.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Raval would contend that :

3.1. The learned Judge ought to have considered the evidence of complainant – C P Gohil, who has been examined at Exhibit 10. Witness has deposed in his testimony that he had followed all the necessary procedure prescribed under the law and after obtaining necessary permission from the Court, he had filed a com