STATE Vs. SHYAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 04.06.1997, whereby the respondent was acquitted by the learned Trial Court in Case No.314/89 under Sections 16(1)(1A) and 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "PFA Act").

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State argues that the court below has not fairly considered the facts and circumstances of the present case as violation of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "PFA Rules") was unambiguously established and there was no scope for the learned Trial Court to acquit the respondent.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argues that the court below failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.111/1972, titled as M.C.D. Vs. Shri Mohan Lal and Another, 1975 1 PFA Cases Page 182. Also failed to appreciate that the Director General Food Laboratory had found the sample to be adulterated because it contained Benzoic Acid-1358 PPM, which was in excess of the maximum prescribed limit of 750 PPM, as contained in Rule 55 of the PFA Rules for "Tomato and Other Sauces" and that there was contradiction between the opinions of Public Analyst and the Director, CFL, Mysore.