STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent was the. Manager of a tea shop at Nanded. On 27/02/1974 the local Food Inspector made a statutory purchase of pedas, a variety of sweet. The Public Analyst on examination found presence of coal tar dye of prohibited variety and launched prosecution for offences punishable under S. 16 (1) (a) (j) on 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act both against the proprietor as also the Manager of the tea shop. The trial court acquitted the proprietor and that acquittal has become final. The Manager was convicted by the trial court, but in the appeal he was acquitted. The State preferred an appeal against that acquittal, but the High court dismissed the appeal in limine. That is how this appeal by special leave has come against acquittal of the Manager.

(2.) In spite of service of notice, the respondent ha not chosen to appear in this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellate court went wrong in acquitting the respondent-Manager by holding that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act were mandatory and noncompliance of the requirements fatally affected the prosecution.