JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev J.Thaker, J.

1.1 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.04.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vansda, in Criminal Case No.537 of 1998, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(1)(2)(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the PFA Act’ for short), the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

1.2 At the outset, is is required to be noted that initially, the trial commenced against 11 accused. During the trial, original accused No.3 – Smt. Shantaben Bhuvanbhai Rawal expired and therefore, the case was abated qua her. Further, as original accused No.8 – Nihil Arunkumar Pandya (a partner of original accused No.4, which is a partnership firm viz., Ambika Distributors) was permanently settled in America and there were no chances of his returning back, the case was put on dormant file qua him. The rest of the accused were acquitted by the judgment and order impugned. Therefore, this appeal is by the State, challenging the acquittal of original accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 to 11.

1.3 It is pointed out from the record and also by producing the death certificates of the concerned that during the pendency of this appeal, original accused No.1 - Navnitbhai Kantibhai Bhavsar has expired on 11.08.2019; original accused No.2 - Kantibhai Premabhai Bhavsar has expired on 02.12.2019; original accused No.5 - Pankajkumar Pranshankar Pandya has expired on 22.10.2015; original accused No.6 - Kaushikkumar Babubhai Choksi has expired on 19.12.2024 and original accused No.11 - Rasiklal Manekchand Dhariwala has expired on 24.10.2017. Therefore, this appeal stands abated qua original accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 11 i.e. present respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 9, respectively.

Accordingly, this appeal is heard qua original accused Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 10 i.e. present respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 only.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the learned trial Court, in a nutshell, is that the complainant viz., Mr. S.G. Naik was serving as Food Inspector and on 24.07.1997 at about 12:00 O’clock, he had gone alongwith helper and utensils to Dhansukhlal Kantilal Firm, situated at Kandolpada, Taluka Vansda, wherein accused No.1 - Navnitbhai Kantilal Bhavsar was selling different type of food products; Bhagubhai Lallubhai Solanki remained as panch witness and it was decided to take sample of Manekchand Gutkha; the complainant purchased five packets of 100 gms. Gutkha packets, wherein each 100 grams packets contained 50 pouches; the complainant paid Rs.258/- in cash towards its purchase value and thereafter, the said Guthkha was packed and sealed and after following due procedure of law in presence of the panch witness, sent the sample to the Public Analyst, Rajkot, for analysis; after obtaining the opinion, the said sample of Guthkha was found mis-branded and adulterated. Therefore, the permission of the Local Health Authority was obtained and the complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vansda, being Criminal Case No.537 of 1998.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution led evidence and on the conclusion of the trial, the learned J.M.F.C., Vansda, passed the impugned and judgment and order.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the complainant and has produced documentary evidence before the trial Court.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through b