i~?l6'i'ilo5o^o3.~£5~yii8Zi ^:iat»;y^:Mt^'$iVJlhIff-a^:^:j^^-^-^;g^_|aA [£^QL£111Q B^QS 5^ 41te i^y. fej.55 lyx^. %u.e fe&^t. \ ' - ..~. .', {.plto i.lbJWJ *<;! >[tA SnSiB tp^taj Ib»tb ~ ^ j^ s^py. 4j?.M. J&iiy. M^SE lais 4^ 1^4 ^ j' ^iS-ltty. .IA3MA JiiJA'llJlS!alA 4^5 . Jii^ M(^±I%& Aiayi -?Jap-Lll AA34A Misi Jlt^ *£:::.-y ,... • •.lig-ii.aEy.'jAaiau lUfc lAS&i,^1-// ^ . ^l fc^ i"4J±--!^&. Ak^lll' M&yi 25^fi td.i2-6 /'/ ' SiSw&xhfch lEX)t!24(& sswt^ te •e^ J^ ieSi ^'is. ^-is^ i^w>[^^ > [3i>, 'BIB' S<i BiK: 'MIB 66'±!E,ai.t.t.Vi.l,3l.l a & ^. ltt tt^fi J23tt ^2JAViS/a5^IJ£ 1661 feB ^ll-. fij.rf BVitE atV-tAMJ iSMBte InMfi Atl^-t-ULtB fi^W. 3tt hUihtt^ hriF QttB l^l'a'£>HJ <ai. ft^' i ^»- l^^jiill??'? iiE;!'E;i^£^i;at' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Just-ice Pritinker E>iwaker Criminat Appeal No. 715 of 1991 APPELLANT RESPQNbENTS State of AAadhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Versus Motilai & others. Shri Pankaj Shrivastoiva, Panel Lawyer for the State. None for the respondents. Despite issuance of SPC ond baitab'e warrant, there is no representation on behatf of the non-applicants. In these circumstomces, Shri H.S. Ahjuwalij-who is one of the lawyers in the panel of 1-ligh Court Lega! Service Committee, is appointed as counsel to represent the respondents No. 2 to 4. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEbURE OR&ER (21.01.2010) Present appeal is directed ogainst the impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.199t passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balod in Criminal Case No. 1032/1986 acquitting the respondents/accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short- "the Act"), 2. During pendency of the present appeal, respondent No. 1 Moti Ram is reported to have died. 1 3. As per the case of the prosecution on 1.12.1985 M.L. Goyal (PW-1), Food Inspector, inspected the Lakshman ©eneralStore situated at New Market, Rojhara and purchased coconut oil from deceased/accused Motild, who was seiling the g ^' 1s»ws!sy ^ '.SSWK-S- ttWf same. It is olisged thort' the sample of the said coconut oil was sent to Public Analyst for chemicaj examinationon 2.12.1985 and report' of the Public Analyst was receiyed vide Ex.P-13 on 21.1.1986 and thereafter the complaint was filed agoinst four accused persons including Motilal (deceased/accused) his partners namely Shyam Sunder & Sanjay Kumar and also the Manager of Tata Oil Mills Company. 4. In support- of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were atso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges !eve!ed ogainst them cmd pleaded innocence and folse implication in the case, 5. By the judgment impugned the court' bslow has acquitted the non-applicouits under Ssctions 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adu!teration Act. Henc®this appeai. 6. Counse! for the appellant submits thaf' on the basis of mort-eria! collected by the prosecution, once the sample wo^ found to be adulterated, the court below ought to have convicted the accused/persons. He further submits that there no occasion for the court below to acquit the accused/persons. 7. On the ofher hand, counsel for the respondents submits thot there were number of lacunas in the prosecution case including that the prosecution has failed to produce notification authorizing Shri M.L. Goyal, Food Inspectorto look into the said complaint case. He further submitsthat there is no evidence on record to show that the seized coconut oil was not fit for consumption. /'^1^." 'i^s} 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and psrused the material available on record. 9. From the record it is ctear tho* prosscution has faiied to produce notificcrtion as required undsr Section 9 of th®Act authorizing Shri M.L. ©oyalOiW-l) to take CKtion ogainst ths accused/persons. Furt-her in the chemical t^port (Ex.P-13) it has not been mentioned thot coconut oil was oduiterort-ed or injurious to health. It is also cleor from the record that report of the Public Analyst was not received in time. 10. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Couri- below has arriwd at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all recisonable doubts, the respondents No. 2 to 4 /accused were entitled for acquittd. 11. After heoring counsel for the pqrt-ies and going thr'ough the evidencs available on record and bsing very much conscious of the existing legat position that in a case against ocquitt-qt if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence ted by ths prosecution oind the trial Court- taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appeitant Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Gourt- is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 4/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7(1) read with Section l6(1) of the Prsvention of Food Adutteration Act, is just and proper and does not cal! for any interference by this Court. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present appeal and the soims is dismisssd accordingly. Sd/- PRITINKER DIWAKER Judge