ARVINDKUMAR TRIKAMLAL RAVAL Vs. RATILAL HEMAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The invocation of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, appears to be the answer of the respondent No. 1 the original accused, against the contention being raised by the appellant-original complainant that 'Look to the Law of the present and not to the Law which was holding the field at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the first appellate Court'.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 came to be convicted for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 7 and 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in C. C. No. 4 of 1983 vide the orders dated 30/07/1983 pronounced by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad. He came to be sentenced to the S.I. for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500 in default to a further S.I. for one month. This judgment of conviction and sentence came to be challenged by the respondent by filing the Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1993 which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, vide orders dated 8/12/1983. The appellant who happens to be the original complainant feels aggrieved with the above said orders and hence this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

(3.) The complainant-Food Inspector had purchased the sample of cow milk from the respondent No. 1 from his shop situated at Madhupura on 16/09/1982 at about 8-30 a.m. for the purpose of analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was obtained and later on the report of the Central Laboratory was also obtained. These two reports were at variance. Nonetheless, the prosecution was launched and on the appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the above said offences were duly established against the respondent No. 1,