CR.A/897/1995 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 897 of 1995 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 & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus VENDOR SATISBHAI MANGILAL SONI & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Ms DARSHANA PANDIT LD. APP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MC SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 378 of CrPC against the judgment and order dated 12.5.1995 passed by the CR.A/897/1995 2/5 JUDGMENT learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Case No. 4772 of 1991, acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them under sec. 7 and 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution, Mr. NA Shah was serving as Food Inspector in the department at Valsad and he was notified by the department as per the provisions of law and on 25.1.1991 at about 12.30am he has visited the shop of respondents, namely; Soni General Store. In the presence of panch Bipin Patel he has issued notice of form no. 6 to the vendor Satish Mangilal Soni and then he has purchased 600 grams of chilly power and paid Rs. 18/- for the same to the vendor. The sample was kept in bottle. Thereafter he seized the sample of chilly powder and and after following the provisions of the Rules, sent the sample of chilly powder to the laboratory for analysis. After receipt of the report from the Laboratory, he has filed the complaint. Thereafter before the trial court, evidence was led and at the end of the trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment has acquitted both the respondents from the charges levelled against them, as aforesaid. 3. Heard Ms. Darshana Pandit learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant. She has submitted that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while acquitting the respondents. He has not properly appreciated the provisions of law and reasons which are given by the learned Judge are not just,proper CR.A/897/1995 3/5 JUDGMENT and legal. She has also submitted that no doubt the panch witness has turned hostile before the trial court, yet trial court is bound to accept the evidence of complainant who is a public servant. She has also submitted that the complainant has followed all mandatory provisions of Rules and Law. So, she submitted that the acquittal order passed by the trial court may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Parikh appearing for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has not followed the mandatory provisions of Sec. 20 of the Rules. He has submitted that the complainant himself was not an authorised person to file the complaint. He has submitted that the complainant has not produced any notification showing that he is an authorised person. Mr. Parikh also submitted that when mandatory provisions are not followed by the prosecution, then, present respondents cannot be penalised for the said offence. He has also submitted that Local Health Authority has not given any proper reason. He has further submitted that the complainant has failed to prove that he has followed the mandatory provisions of Food Adulteration Act. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record of the case. It clearly transpired from record that in the report, it is not mentioned that the said Chilly CR.A/897/1995 4/5 JUDGMENT powder is injurious to health. It also reveals that the prosecution has failed to establish whether the Local Health Authority was empowered to give direction. It also clearly reveals that the prosecution has not produced any notification in connection with the same, though ample opportunities were given to the Food Inspector. Therefore, in my view, the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 12.5.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad in Criminal Case No. 4772/1991 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. The respondents – accused are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. CR.A/897/1995 5/5 JUDGMENT (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/