JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.01.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Municipal Court) at Surat, in P.F.A. Case No.25 of 1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the PFA Act’ for short), the appellant – Surat Municipal Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the learned trial Court, in a nutshell, is that on 25.10.1996, the appellant – the complainant i.e. Food Inspector, upon instructions from the L.H.A., has visited the ‘Mirch Masala Restaurant’ at Surat; at that time, accused No.3 was present and after primary investigation, he has visited the kitchen, which was very unhygienic, there were defects in water connections, water was stored, many cockroaches and flies were there, there is filth and oil on the platform; and that took sample of 600 g.m. curd from storage curd of 3 k.g. kept in aluminum pot, divided in three parts, added preservative, sent one sample to the laboratory for analysis; and that there was a report from the laborary with regard to the sample concerned that there is less fat of 2.2% instead of 6% as per rules; and that after obtaining the permission, the complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal Court), Surat being P.F.A.Case No.25 of 1997.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution led various evidence mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and on the conclusion of the trial, the learned J.M.F.C. (Municipal Court), Surat, passed the impugned 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 advocate for the appellant – Corporation has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on recor