It has been rightly observed by the learned Magistrate that the articles were not sold under any brand and, therefore, there is no question of misbranding the article which is alleged in the report. The articles which were collected by the Food Inspector were in loose condition, having no brand on the box, from which the same was collected. In view of this factual aspect, the Trial Court was right in discharging the accused from the charges of Section (2)(ix)(c) of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no case has been made out against the accused persons and which would have been resulted in conviction in any case.
Print Page
Gujarat High Court
STATE OF GUJARAT vs Mr NARAYAN HARIRAM MEGHANI & ANR
on 21 December, 2011
1 Heard Ms. Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant - State of Gujarat and Mr. Param Buch, learned Advocate for the respondents.
2 The present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the applicant-State of Gujarat, challenging the Order dated 8th August, 2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh, in Criminal Case No.5050 of 1997 passed u/s 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, discharging the respondents-accused for the offences under Section 2(ix)(c) and Section-7(ii) under thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
3 Brief facts arising from the record of the case are as under:
3.1 The Food Inspector visited the factory premises of the respondents on 15th February, 1997 from where the respondents were manufacturing and selling edible item known as "sugar sakariya" (sugar candy). The Food Inspector purchased 900 grams of sugar sakariya kept in an open wooden box which was lying in the factory premises. After following the procedure for collecting the samples, the same were sent to the laboratory for the Public Analyst Report.
3.2 The Public Analyst opined that the article which was sent for analysis was found misbranded under Section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Relying upon the said report, a complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector under the said provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was registered as Criminal Case No.5050 of 1997 with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh.
3.3 The respondents accused submitted an application vide Exhibit-36 under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed that no case has been made out against the accused as alleged in the FIR since there was no misbranding of the article which was sold by the respondents - accused. It was also contended in the application that the authorities have failed to establish that in what manner the accused have committed offence under Section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4 After hearing the learned Advocate for the accused as well as the learned APP, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accepted the application and by reasoned order dated 8.8.2006 and discharged the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.
5 Against this decision dated 8.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 5050 of 1997, present Revision Application has been filed by the applicant - State of Gujarat on various grounds. The grounds contended in the memo of application are that the Food Inspector had followed the procedure in collecting the article as well as sending the same to the laboratory for analysis, however, the Trial Court had dealt with the Section-2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
6 Ms.
Shah has submitted that the Trial Court had discharged the accused persons at the stage where even the Magistrate had not taken the evidence in the matter. Another submission made by learned APP is that the Trial Court has misread the report dated 15th March, 1997 of the Public Analysist.
7 On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Param Buch for learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for the respondents - accused has supported the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in discharging the accused persons. He has submitted that under Section 245(2) of the Cr. P.C., the Magistrate has ample power to discharge the accused persons even at any previous stage of the case which is mentioned under Section 244 of the Cr. P.C. He has submitted that in the present case by giving elaborate reasons, the Trial Court has rightly discharged the accused persons from the charges which had no factual or legal support.
8 I have gone through the Public Analyst report dated 15th March, 1997. While describing the details of samples, four items are compared, in which all the items are as per the limits prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Even though the items tallied with the permissible limits, the Analyst in the last line of the report observed that "he is of the opinion that the sample of sugar sakariya is misbranded under Section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954."
To appreciate the same, Section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reproduced here-in-below:
(ix) "misbranded"
- an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded -
(a) ......
(b) ......
(c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food."
9 It is an admitted position that the articles purchased from the factory were kept in an open wooden box having no brand and, therefore, there is no question of the articles of food which was sold by the respondents having the name of some another article of food. Therefore, the submission made by the learned APP is unacceptable since Public Analyst has failed in describing in what manner the articles are misbranded. The food article `sugar sakaria' is not compared by the Analyst with another one having some different name.
10 It has been rightly observed by the learned Magistrate that the articles were not sold under any brand and, therefore, there is no question of misbranding the article which is alleged in the report. The articles which were collected by the Food Inspector were in loose condition, having no brand on the box, from which the same was collected. In view of this factual aspect, the Trial Court was right in discharging the accused from the charges of Section (2)(ix)(c) of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no case has been made out against the accused persons and which would have been resulted in conviction in any case.
11 In view of the reasons stated here-in-above, this Revision Application fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment