Gujarat High Court
S.C.Desai vs Parshotambhai Jadavbhai Monpara on 25 June, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1316 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
S.C.DESAI
Versus
PARSHOTAMBHAI JADAVBHAI MONPARA & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This Appeal is filed by the appellant, who is Food
Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation, under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat dated
31.07.2006 in PFA Case No.5 of 2005 whereby the respondent
- accused came to be acquitted of the charge punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
under Section 7(3) and (16) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
1954') for breach of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,
1955') and Rule 5 of the Gujarat Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,
1961'), giving benefit of doubt to the respondent - accused.
[2.0] According to the case of the complainant before the
Court, the complainant is appointed as Food Inspector as per
the provisions made in 'the Act, 1954' and is authorized to
inquire into /investigate within the limit of Corporation of the
premises dealing with food articles and take sample or see
that provisions of 'the Act, 1954', and Rules are being followed
or not. He is also authorized to take sample of food article,
send it to the Public Analyst, Surat Municipal Corporation and
perform other duties as assigned to him by the Local Health
Authority.
[2.1] The complainant Food Inspector on 28.12.2004 at
about 5:00 p.m. visited, during the course of his duty, premises
situated at the address shown in the cause title of the
complaint where he found the respondent - accused, who is
running business in the name of Swagat Water, storing packed
carboys of 'packaged drinking water' for the purpose of sale to
the consumers and selling the same. According to him,
'packaged drinking water' is a 'food' as defined under Section
2(v) of 'the Act, 1954' and if it is stored for the purpose of sale
to the consumer and it is sold, it is required to have license as
provided under Rule 50 of 'the Rules, 1955' as also under Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
5 of 'the Rules, 1961'.
[2.2] He was asked for license duly issued for the year
2004-05 for dealing in 'food' as provided under Rule 50 of 'the
Rules, 1955' for verification. He was also asked if he does not
have that license, if any prescribed fees is deposited for the
purpose of the same, even he was asked to produce the
receipt thereof. However, respondent - accused was unable to
show any such license or receipt of fees, and therefore,
respondent - accused was informed that within 7 days to show
receipt of payment towards license fees and it was given to
him by way of written notice. Since respondent - accused
refused to sign the said notice, in token of having received it,
the said notice was pasted on the open door of the premises in
presence of Peon - Chetan Sharma.
[2.3] Despite expiry of seven days, accused failed to
show any receipt or even a license. It was verified from his
office but he did not obtain any license from the office. Thus,
respondent - accused committed an offence for breach of Rule
5 of 'the Rule, 1961', Rule 50 of 'the Rule, 1955' and in breach
thereof when article of 'food' was stored for the purpose of
sale to the consumer and selling it, doing business in respect
thereof, he committed an offence under Section 7(3), which is
punishable under Section 16 of 'the Act, 1954'. Therefore, on
03.03.2005 complaint in respect thereof before the competent
Court came to be filed. Needless to say that prior to filing of
the complaint under Section 20 of 'the Act, 1954', complainant
obtained written consent from Deputy Commissioner of Health
and Hospital, being a Local Health Authority, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
produced alongwith the complaint for the purpose of taking
cognizance by the Court.
[2.4] During the course of trial, depositions of two
witnesses, appellant - original complainant - Food Inspector as
also Chetan Kantilal Sharma was recorded. Over and above
that, seven documents were produced and proved. On
conclusion of evidence and recording further statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
arguments of both the sides were heard in detail. Considering
the submissions made, when the documents were proved
before the Court and applying the law applicable to the facts
of the present case, learned Magistrate has passed the
judgment and order of acquittal, which is challenged before
this Court, as aforesaid.
[3.0] Heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the
appellant. According to his submission, not only the Food
Inspector's duty is to draw a sample but he can verify and
ascertain whether any license, if required for a person, who is
dealing in food article is there or not. He has further submitted
that it is not necessary that while examining there is any
license possessed by a person as required under the Act and
Rules, to draw the sample of any food article and /or to
conduct both the things together, if, Food Inspector, at the the
time of visit, finds that a person is dealing with manufacture,
sale, etc. of food articles without any license, as required under
'the Act, 1954' and the Rules, he can straightaway examine
that and verify the same. There is a prohibition to
manufacture, sale or store for sale etc. of food article without
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
license as required under the provisions of applicable law, and
therefore, it is also as a part of duty of the Food Inspector to
ask for the same. It is not necessary for him, always, to draw
the sample of food article to lend assurance to his official duty.
[3.1] Drawing attention of the Court to the depositions
recorded, he submitted that not only the Food Inspector but
witness Chetan Sharma - Peon, who accompanied him at the
premises of respondent - accused, saw the plant was running
and carboys were filled with 'packaged drinking water' for the
purpose of sale. They were stored not only in the premises but
in Tempo as well. He has further submitted that though
'water' simplicitor is excluded from the provisions of the Act
and the Rules, 'packaged drinking water' and 'mineral water'
are not excluded from the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
As provided under the Rules, not only both requires BIS
certification mark on the package, they are also supposed to
meet with the standards prescribed in Appendix 'B' of 'the
Rules, 1955'. Therefore, if 'water' may not be covered under
the provisions of 'the Act, 1954' and Rules, 'packaged drinking
water' and 'mineral water' are surely articles of food and they
are covered under the provisions of 'the Act, 1954' and Rules,
and therefore, the person manufacturing, storing for sale or
selling 'packaged drinking water' or 'mineral water' is required
to have license as provided under 'the Rules, 1955' and 'the
Rules, 1961'.
[3.2] He has further submitted that the signboard of
Swagat Water displaying 'packaged drinking water' is also
deposed to by him before the Court. According to him as also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
witness - Chetan Sharma, the respondent - accused was
dealing in 'packaged drinking water', and therefore, he was
supposed to have license issued by the competent authority as
provided under the Rules. Therefore, the same was demanded
but the respondent - accused was unable to produce the same
despite sufficient time was given to produce even receipt
evidencing and applying for license or for renewal of the same
for the year 2004-05. Having failed to satisfy the same, the
aforesaid prosecution was launched against the respondent -
accused before the competent Court, which ended in the
acquittal of the respondent - accused, and therefore, the
present Appeal is filed challenging the same on the aforesaid
submissions.
[3.3] Though notice is served, respondent no.1 is neither
present in person nor through an advocate.
[3.4] Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appears for respondent no.2 herein.
[3.5] Since the respondent - accused has chosen not to
appear either in person or through an advocate and Appeal
being of the year 2008, it is thought fit to proceed with the
same.
[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant
as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor and going through
the judgment and order of acquittal as also depositions of
witnesses and the documents produced and proved, let it be
examined whether this Appeal has any substance in it or not.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
[4.1] Before dealing with the evidence, documents
produced and proved, it would be worthwhile to refer the case
of defence putforth not only during the trial but even prior
thereto. In this case, the date of visit of the Food Inspector to
the premises of the respondent - accused is 28.12.2004
whereas respondent - accused alongwith one another even
prior thereto vide communication dated 19.02.2004 addressed
to the Deputy Commissioner (Health and Hospital) Local Health
Authority, Surat Municipal Corporation and dated 16.08.2004
informed them that they are supplying natural drinking non
packaged water to the consumer after chilling it in its pure and
natural conditions, without any process and adding anything to
it. Their consistent case by way of those two letters, which is
admitted to have been received by the competent authority of
Surat Municipal Corporation and duly exhibited before the
Court at Exhs.41 and 27 respectively that they are neither
dealing with 'packaged drinking water' nor 'mineral water', and
therefore, even their 'water' should not meet with any of the
standards as prescribed in Appendix 'B' of 'the Rule, 1955'.
Their consistent case is that 'water' simplicitor is not a 'food'
as defined under Section 2(v) of 'the Act, 1954', which is being
specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act and the
Rules, and therefore, they are also not required to have any
license as defined under the Act and the Rules for the same.
Since Food Inspectors of the Corporation were harassing the
accused and one another, they jointly represented to the
competent authority of Surat Municipal Corporation drawing
attention to the aforesaid aspects. Be that as it may, it will be
examined and dealt with in detail while discussing that aspect
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
in this judgment at an appropriate stage but fact remains that
even prior to the case is filed or premises is examined what
they deal in and whether fulfillment of any criterias or
requirements under the Act and the Rules is required to be
followed or not was already made it clear by them. Over and
above that, they have named certain other persons /entities in
different areas of Surat city covered under the Corporation
limit dealing with the same water or the activities, which
accused is carrying on, according to him, no one is ever asked
for any license so far.
[4.2] If the complaint filed by the appellant- Food
Inspector is seen, though name of the accused is shown as
Parshotambhai Jadavbhai Monpara, a person doing business in
the name of Swagat Water but complaint, paragraph 2, reflects
that respondent - accused, at the address shown in the cause
title, is preparing 'packaged drinking water' and selling the
same in the name of Amrut Water. Whatever relevance of the
same may be dealt with in the later part of the judgment but
fact remains that the appellant - Food Inspector is with a
closed mind appears to have visited the premises of the
respondent - accused. Though in his deposition he has stated
that on the date of his visit to the premises of the respondent -
accused where accused was personally present was
manufacturing 'packaged drinking water' and sale thereof. On
the date of even his visit, manufacturing process was
continued and the treatment plant was on. Therefore, he
asked for license under the Act issued by the competent
authority. However, neither his complaint nor his forwarding
letter seeking written consent for filing prosecution nor written
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
consent of LHA contains such facts in those documents prior to
giving deposition before the Court.
[4.3] As such, complaint may not disclose the whole
case. If the appellant - complainant asserts that respondent -
accused was manufacturing 'packaged drinking water' at the
place of inspection done by him, that too, for the purpose of
sale, he would have so reflected in the complaint, even if he
has decided not to take sample of any 'packaged drinking
water'. As such, in the entire career as an advocate as also
Judge, I have never seen any prosecution only based on
requirement of license where premises of manufacturing of
food article is visited without any sample thereof drawn. As
such, everywhere sample of food is drawn for the purpose of
examining whether it confirms to the standards prescribed
under the Act or Rules or not.
[4.4] Not only the appellant - Food Inspector has failed to
support his assertion, that too, for the first time made before
the Court by way of deposition, he has neither collected any
contemporaneous record nor produced and proved the same
before the Court. Not only that, he has improved upon even
the sign board he saw at the place reflecting Swagat Water
and (packaged drinking water), which is nowhere stated by
him in the complaint. His request for the written consent and in
the consent itself, if what he asserts appears to be correct,
somewhere at some point of time, even prior to his filing
complaint, it should reflect. Though he is not expected to raid
every premises named by the accused in their earlier
communications, nonetheless, it does not absolve Food
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Inspector, when he claims that activity of manufacturing
'packaged drinking water' was going on.
[4.5] Not only that, no independent person is involved or
associated at the time of visit of the premises of respondent -
accused to show that any activity of manufacturing process of
food article like 'packaged drinking water' is going on. Though
by ascertaining the requirement of license and checking the
same, associating an independent person may not be required
but when he is sure, before proceeding with the premises of
the accused, manufacturing 'packaged drinking water', he
could have taken with him independent person or after
witnessing that manufacturing process of 'packaged drinking
water' is going, he would have requisitioned services of
independent person in support of his such association. That
fact is missing so far as present case is concerned. Looking at
his deposition before the Court, during the course of
examination-in-chief, he has improved upon his own version,
which is not there in the complaint. He asserted in the
deposition that the accused is manufacturing 'packaged
drinking water' and sale thereof. He has given address of the
place of business of the respondent - accused. He has further
asserted that the respondent - accused is dealing in this
business in the name of Swagat Water. He is able to say so, as
on the date of his visit there was a signboard outside the
premises of the accused. He has further asserted that the
signboard Swagat Water and (packaged drinking water) was
written and as owner of the premises, name of the accused
was mentioned. Such factum of Swagat Water (packaged
drinking water) is nowhere reflected in the complaint or even
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
in the written consent sought for by the appellant and
competent authority. The said assertion on oath is also
without any support thereof, not only of independent witness
but of any contemporaneous record. Surprisingly, though
manufacturing process of 'packaged drinking water' was going
on and treatment plant was also on, he had also not drawn any
sample to ascertain compliance of the provisions of the Act or
Rules. If that attempt would have been done, he is supposed
to have presence of associating two independent persons as
required under Sub Section (7) of Section 10 of 'the Act, 1954'.
Since the appellant -Food Inspector might have been exposed,
he did not think it fit to draw any sample to avoid presence of
any other independent person with him and he felt satisfied by
asking copy of license under the guise that accused is dealing
with 'packaged drinking water', without any material. Even if
sample of 'packaged drinking water' is drawn and it confirms
to the standard prescribed, he could still prove his case for
requirement of license, which is not there with the accused as
attempted to be proved by him. As such, not only prior to the
prosecution but during the course of even trial also, a specific
case of the accused is that he is dealing in simplicitor 'water'
and not 'packaged drinking water' or 'mineral water'. 'Water'
and 'drug' are specifically excluded from the definition of 'food'
as defined under Section 2(v) of 'the Act, 1954'.
[4.6] The appellant - Food Inspector had to admit in his
cross examination that Exh.1 complaint does not contain
assertion that signboard outside the premises of the accused
displaying 'packaged drinking water' is nowhere mentioned in
the complaint. He had to further admit that for the first time
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
he has deposed to before the Court that there was any
signboard outside the premises and there was any writing over
the same. Not only he had to admit that the factum of
signboard and writing over the same outside the premises of
the accused is also missing in the notice Exh.24, which is
claimed to have been pasted at the door of the premises.
Again he had to admit that for such signboard reflecting
'packaged drinking water' is also not finding place in the
written consent granted by the competent authority. Under
Rule 9 of 'the Rules, 1955' certain duties are assigned to Food
Inspector. Sub Rule (e) of Rule 9 of 'the Rules, 1955' prescribe
maintaining the record of all inspections made and actions
taken by him in the performance of his duties, including the
taking of samples and the seizure of stocks, and to submit the
copies of such record to the Health Officer or the Food
(Health) Authority as directed in this behalf. However, as
admitted by him in the cross examination he does not maintain
any daily diary as required under Rule 9(e) of 'the Rules,
1955'. He had to admit that nowhere in the daily diary or any
register, he has mentioned about the signboard outside the
premises of the accused as deposed to by him before the Court
for the first time. As admitted by him, he is knowing that
Exh.27 notice which is dated 16.08.2024 by the accused and
one another, claims that they are not dealing with 'packaged
drinking water' or 'mineral water'. He had to further admit
that their Department i.e. Corporation has not even replied or
answered said notice Exh.27. Though he claims to be Food
Inspector, who is supposed to know all the provisions of the Act
and the Rules, he admits that 'food' is defined under 'the Act,
1954'. However, he had denied the suggestion that 'water' is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
exempted from the definition of 'food', which is contrary to the
plain definition of 'food' as defined under 'the Act, 1954'.
Therefore, learned advocate for the defence had to show him
copy of 'the Act, 1954', and he was shown Section 2 of 'the
Act, 1954' thereof and thereafter asked question whether
'water' is exempted from the provisions of 'the Act, 1954' or
not. In answer thereof, he had to admit that it is correct. He
has further admitted that the provisions for license under Rule
50 of 'the Rules, 1955' is made under 'the Act, 1954' for
'packaged drinking water'. He has to further admit that as
provided under Rule 50 of 'the Rules, 1955' requirement of
the license is only for the article of 'food'. He has further
admitted that for selling water, no license is required from the
Corporation. He has further admitted running water, water
from the well, water flowing in the river and water of pond are
included as a 'water'. He has to further admit that in summer
season in so many parts of the Corporation limit, it provides
water through tankers. He has further admitted that when
water tankers are provided by the Corporation, a bill of
Rs.150/- to Rs.250/- is prescribed. He had to admit that water
provided on road free of charge or even water provided by
Corporation do not require BIS certification mark. He does not
know that Radhe Marketing, Nandini Water, Arya Spring Water
and Ami Water are chilling potable water and selling the same.
He has to admit in his cross examination that when he visited
the premises of the accused, he was knowing about the
correspondences by the accused and one another with the
Corporation vide communication dated 19.02.2004 and
16.08.2004, which are exhibits 41 and 27 respectively, he was
aware of the same. He had to admit in his cross examination
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
that in his presence, he had no occasion to see on the date of
visit to the premises the accused was selling 'packaged
drinking water' carboys to any customer. However, he
volunteered that he saw water carboys were placed in Tempo.
[4.7] A faint attempt was made by the learned advocate
for the complainant in the arguments before the learned
Magistrate that there is an admission on the part of accused
where a suggestion was put to the witness that on the day of
visit of the complainant in the premises, there were empty
and filled carboys of 'packaged drinking water' stored. The
said submission of the learned advocate for the complainant is
without any substance. Putting such suggestion, it cannot be
said that the accused has admitted that he is dealing with
'packaged drinking water'. On the contrary, even prior to visit
of the Food Inspector, it was the specific case of the accused
that they never deal with any 'packaged drinking water' or
'mineral water' but only deal with 'water' and after it was
chilled the same was filled in a carboy and stored. Thus, in
absence of any contemporaneous record produced and proved
by the complainant, not even suggested in any prior
documentation before deposition in the Court in respect of
witnessing treatment plant in running condition and 'packaged
drinking water' being stored, it can never be proved and
believed that accused is dealing with 'packaged drinking
water'. He has also further admitted that on the date of visit,
he was knowing that the accused did not have BIS mark
certification. Despite that, he has to admit he did not seize
any carboys of 'packaged drinking water' stored in the
premises of the accused. He has further admitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Food Inspector has power to seize even the goods. He had to
admit that if he intended to draw sample of 'packaged drinking
water' from the premises of the accused on the date of visit,
he could have done that. He has further admitted that
nowhere either in the act or the rules prohibits drawing of
sample from a manufacturer, who has license under Rule 50 of
'the Rules, 1955'. He had to further admit that for selling
sample water, no license as provided under Rule 50 of the
Rules, 1955 is required.
[4.8] There is one more reason to doubt the case of the
prosecution when they claim that the accused was dealing with
'packaged drinking water' when appellant - Food Inspector
visited the premises he knew that carboys did not have BIS
certification mark over the same, there was breach of Rule
49(28) of 'the Rules, 1955' and straightaway he could have
seized that carboys and establish that it did not contain any
BIS certification mark as required under Rule 49 (28) of 'the
Rules, 1955'. Rule 49 of 'the Rules, 1955' is placed in part IX
of the head, "conditions for sale and license". Appendix 'B' of
the Rules prescribes definition and standards of quality where
standards of quality for 'mineral water' as also 'packaged
drinking water' provided in Article A.32 and Article A.33 of
Appendix 'B'. Nowhere either 'the Act, 1954', or the Rules
provide any standards of quality prescribed under Appendix
'B', 'C' or 'D' of the Rules for simple 'water'. That means
person who is dealing in simple water may be packing the
same cannot be said to be included in a definition of 'food' as
defined under Section 2(v) of 'the Act, 1954' which requires
license for manufacture sale etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
[4.9] Appendix 'B' and 'C' are prescribed, which reflects
standard of quality prescribed under Rule 5 of 'the Rules,
1955'. Thus, it is clear that 'packaged drinking water' and
'mineral water', manufacturer of sale etc. requires not only BIS
certification mark but standard of quality are also prescribed
for the same. Coming to the deposition of Chetan Sharma -
P.W. 2 - Peon of the Food Department, Surat Municipal
Corporation, he is under direct control of Food Inspector and he
has to perform what he entrusts him. What appellant - Food
Inspector has not deposed to in the deposition, with a view to
clarify glaring mistake in the complaint, it has been so stated
by P.W. 2 Chetan Sharma when he states before the Court
that alongwith appellant - Food Inspector before quarter to two
years at about 4:00 p.m. from their office, they went to
establishment named as Amrut Water and at about 5:00 p.m.
they reached there. Thereafter, they went to Swagat Water
just behind Amrut water. Not only visit to Amrut water is not
stated by the Food Inspector in his deposition, he has not even
stated in his deposition about any such complaint of
requirement of license is filed against Amrut Water or not. Not
only that, even P.W. 2 Chetan Sharma has also not deposed to
before the Court what they did at Amrut Water. In a
diametrically opposite version from the version of Food
Inspector, he went on to state that the respondent - accused
owner of the premises of Swagat Water was present in the
premises was filling the carboys. However, in his examination-
in-chief, he has stated that Swagat Water is dealing in potable
water. He had to admit that premises, which is visited by them
in the name of Swagat Water, it was on ground floor and in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
said township, in the upper floors, there are residential
premises. He had to further admit that even Amrut Water is
also situated at the ground floor and his house is in a flat like
premises.
[4.10] This is the nature of evidence led before the Court.
The evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire
confidence in absence of any contemporaneous record that
the accused was dealing in 'packaged drinking water' as
claimed by the appellant - Food Inspector.
[4.11] As such, probable defence raised and pleaded by
the accused inspires much confidence as prior to even visit of
the Food Inspector at his premises he alongwith owner of
Amrut Water very clearly stated to Surat Municipal Corporation
and competent authority that they are dealing with simple
water chilling it and supplying it as per the requirement. They
have very categorically made clear that they are not dealing
either in 'mineral water' or even 'packaged drinking water'.
Though there are several such Institutions, which deal with
simple water and chilling process named by them in their
communications except these two Institutions, no requirement
of license was asked for from any of the Institutions named
therein. Not only that, neither the Food Inspector nor
competent authority in the Surat Municipal Corporation even
attempted to reply their two communications made much prior
to the date of visit, Exhs.41 and 27. Not only, the evidence led
before the Court inspires no confidence as they fail to prove
the case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt
but it appears that accused and even Amrut Water are being
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1316/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
targeted by Surat Municipal Corporation through such Food
Inspectors. The learned Magistrate has assigned good
reasons supported by evidence led before the Court and
recorded an order of acquittal. Therefore, even if there are
two views possible, the view, which is favourable to the
accused is to be accepted, in an acquittal Appeal. Whereas in
the present case, the defence raised appears to be more
probable than the case pleaded by the prosecution. Therefore,
I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment
and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate.
Therefore, this Appeal is without any merit, and therefore, it is
hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, to be
returned forthwith.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
siji
