Gujarat High Court
CR.A/926/1999 of STATE OF GUJARAT Vs GORDHANBHAI JASMATBHAI on 29 December 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 926 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 926 of 1999
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
=========================================
=
1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see ]the judgment ?the judgment ?
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the ]judgment ?judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as 4to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus
GORDHANBHAI JASMATBHAI & OTHERS
==========================================
Appearance :MS MS PANCHAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTORfor AppellantMR DK MODI with MR MD MODI for Opponent(s) : 1, 3,==========================================
CORAM :[HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ]BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date : 29/12/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. State has preferred this appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 31.5.1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar in Criminal Case No.350 of 1997 acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable under sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”).
2. One Mr. Y.M. Karud, Food Inspector at Junagadh on 5.5.1997, purchased three bottles of Asfotida (Anmol) each weighing 200 gms from accused No.1. Accused No.2 was the owner of the firm selling the said food articles and had purchased the same from accused No.3. The food article, so purchased was sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted a report and found that as the approximate composition of edible rice flour was not indicated in the label, there was a breach of Rule 42(M) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, after following the due procedure, complaint was lodged against the accused. After recording evidence, charge Exh-81 was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. After hearing oral submissions, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the officer who accorded the sanction had no authority to accord sanction for prosecution and therefore, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal.
3. I have heard learned APP Ms Mita Panchal for the appellant State and Mr. Modi for respondent Nos.1 and 3. It is reported that respondent No.2 has died during pendency of this proceedings. Therefore, proceedings against him stand abated.
4. It is submitted by the learned APP that the learned Magistrate has committed error in holding that the sanction is not valid sanction, as the officer who had accorded the sanction was competent to accord sanction and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 has submitted that Mr. L.L. Raval has accorded the sanction as Local Health Authority and the evidence indicates that at the time of according sanction, Mr. Raval was working as in charge Local Health Authority and therefore, he had no authority to accord sanction and therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. He has relied upon the decision of State of Gujarat v. Dhirajlal Amratlal Kansara and another reported in 16 GLR page 982and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Samirbhai Harishankarbhai Raval rendered in Criminal Appeal No.828 of 2004 on 23.6.2006.
6. Under section 20 of the Act, no prosecution for an offence under the Act, not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A of the Act shall be instituted except by or with the consent of a person authorized in this behalf by general or special order. It appears from the impugned judgment that the sanction to prosecute was accorded by Mr. L.L. Raval. The evidence of PW 1 Bharatbhai Exh-16 indicates that when sanction Exh-41 was accorded, Mr. Raval was working as in charge Local Health Authority. In the decision of Dhirajlal Amratlal Kansara (supra), this Court has held that a person temporary holding charge of Chief Officer cannot himself sanction or file the complaint. Therefore, Mr. Raval, who accorded sanction was temporary holding the charge, he could not have accorded the sanction and prosecution launched on the basis of such sanction would fail on this technical ground. In the decision of Samirbhai Harishankarbhai Raval (supra), in respect of sanction accorded by the same person Mr. L.L. Raval as in charge Local Health Authority, this Court following the decision of Dhirajlal Amratlal Kansara (supra) held that Mr. Raval was not appointed as Local Health Authority and as he was merely holding the charge, could not have accorded the sanction.
7. In view of above decisions, sanction accorded by Mr. Raval was not a valid sanction and therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
shekhar/-
(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J.)