M.C. Bhatt vs Ramniklal Maganlal Shah Prop. Shah Ramniklal Maganlal and Co. and Others

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant - (original complainant - Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation, u/s 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2002, rendered in P.F.A. Case No. 3 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Surat. The said case was registered against the present Respondents No. 1 to 8 - original accused for the offence u/s 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act") in the Court of learned JMFC (Municipal), Surat. The said judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the Food Inspector on the ground that the judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.

According to the prosecution case, the complainant - Food Inspector, visited the business premise of Respondent No. 1 - accused No. 1 on 07.09.1999 and in presence of Respondent No. 2 and the panch, took sample of "Rajmoti Cotton Oil" for the purpose of analysis. The panchnama was also prepared. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted the report in which it has been found that the sample is adulterated. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the Respondent No. 1 - original accused for the offences under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Act in the Court of learned JMFC (Municipal), Surat, being PFA Case No. 3 of 2001.

At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the Respondent - accused.

Learned Advocate for the Appellant - original complainant has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence produced on record by the complainant and has erred in not believing the case of prosecution. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. He has also contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large.

I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. Looking to the papers and the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant has committed the breach of Section 10(7) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is unable to convince this Court as to whether the prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.

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.

In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2002 passed by the learned JMFC (Municipal), Surat, in PFA Case No. 3 of 2001, acquitting the Respondents (original accused), is hereby confirmed.