CR.A/749/1994 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 749 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus RAMESHBHAI MAGANLAL VADERIYA & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS DARSHANA PANDIT Ld. APP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SANDEEP N BHATT for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant-State has filed this appeal under section 378 of CrPC against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1994 passed by the learned Judicial CR.A/749/1994 2/6 JUDGMENT Magistrate First Class, Bagsara in Criminal Case No. 98 of 1992 acquitting the present respondents from the charges levelled against them. 2. According to the prosecution, the complainant Rupabhai Arjanbhai Meghava was serving as Food Inspector at Amreli, and on 6.8.1991 he has visited the shop of the present respondents namely M/s. Jalaram Kirana Bhandar and introduced himself as Food Inspector and thereafter purchased 450 grams of pure “ghee”. The sample of 'ghee' was seized in the presence of panchas and after following the procedure of sec. 21(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, sent the sample to the laboratory for analysis. After receipt of the report of Public Analyst, he filed the complaint for the offence punishable under sec. 7(1) and 16 of the PFA Act on 8.9.1992. The charge was framed against the respondents. Thereafter, oral evidence was recorded by the trial court and statements of the respondents were also recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted by the trial court vide impugned judgment. Therefore, against the acquittal order of the trial court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State. 3. Heard Ms. Pandit learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant. She has submitted that the trial court has not applied its mind and has not properly appreciated the provisions of law. The reasons given by the trial court are not just and proper and are CR.A/749/1994 3/6 JUDGMENT against the provisions of law. She has read the whole evidence of the case as well as the judgment of the trial court. 4. Mr. Sandip Bhatt learned advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the present complainant, who has been cited as Inspector is not an experienced person and that after completion of compulsory training period of three months, a person can only be appointed as a Food Inspector. He further submitted that prior to the appointment on the said post, he was working as a Sanitary Inspector. He has got no other training and he is not a qualified person. He therefore submitted that as per the provisions of Rule-8 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, he is not a qualified person. He has also submitted that the gazette from which the complainant can say that he is appointed as Food Inspector, is not produced. He has read Rule-18 and submitted that memorandum and seal impression both are required to be sent separately but present complainant has failed to follow Rules-17 and 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the Act, which are of mandatory nature and the prosecution has committed breach of the said mandatory provisions of law. He has also submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the provisions of the Rules which are of mandatory in nature are followed by the prosecution. However, they have not proved the same. He has also submitted that the sanction which was obtained by the complainant CR.A/749/1994 4/6 JUDGMENT was not given with the application of mind but it was given mechanically. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court and also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. It transpires that the mandatory provisions of Rules 17 and 18 are not followed by the prosecution. It also appears that so far as the qualification of the complainant Food Inspector is concerned, he is not a qualified person. It also appears that pure 'ghee' was purchased by him from the respondents but no receipt was obtained from them, the prosecution has not produced any bill to show that the sample of 'ghee' was purchased from the shop of respondents and the circumstantial evidence is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It also appears that the prosecution has failed to prove the said version. It is also discussed by the trial court that the complainant has not explained that though both the respondents are well aware with the english language, why Exh. 19 which is prepared by him in English was not endorsed by them. Even he has not made endorsement that he explained the same in Gujarati or Hindi. He had simply prepared the same. It also appears from the panchanama that the name of respondent no. 2 is added subsequently and the name of respondent no. 1 was also changed and something was added by him. Even he has not obtained any slip from the Junagadh Office to show that sample CR.A/749/1994 5/6 JUDGMENT was received by the Agency or not. Therefore, it appears that the complainant Food Inspector was not a qualified person. Even the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that by virtue of notification published in the gazette, the present complainant was appointed as Food Inspector. Therefore from the judgment itself and the evidence produced before the trial court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Iot also transpires that the sanction given also suffers from non-application of mind. 6. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re- write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.4.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagsara in Criminal Case No. 98/1992 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby CR.A/749/1994 6/6 JUDGMENT confirmed. (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/