HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE AND M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the findings of the fact Shri Soni vehemently contended that the requisite quantity of the sample of Besin required to be taken under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was not lifted by the Food Inspector in that instead of purchasing 750 grams of Besin, the Food Inspector purchased only 600 grams thereof vide the sample so lifted it was urged being nit in accordance with the requirement of law, the same has vitiated the trial of the petitioner in that there was not only non-compliance with the aforesaid Rule but the less quantity of the sample sent for analysis was likely to result in injustice as the shortage of the quantity of a sample for analysis is not permitted by the statute. For this submission Shri Soni placed strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.C.D. Vs. Attar Singh, 1975(II) F.A.C. 20 following the Supreme Court Decision in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1975 (I) F.A.C. 1. He also relied upon a decision of V.D. Misra, J., in Criminal Revision No. 405 of 1971, Ram Kumar Vs. The State, 1976 (II) F.A.C. 195 where the learned Judge, following the above cited authorities, accepted the revision petition. In view of the settled law, the revision petition is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. Revision accepted.