BABABHAI BHAIJIBHAI Vs. NAISHADHRAI DEVENDRARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. D. F. Amin learned advocate appears for. Mr.B.K. Amin for the petitioner in this Revision Application. while the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. R. Divetia appears for the State. The learned advocate Mr. N. M. Amin appears for Mr. S. N. Shelat for respondent No. 1 the original complainant.

(2.) Now so far as the first point is concerned there does not appeal to be any substance in that contention. This point has been covered by a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in State of Kerela v. Parameswaran Pillai 1975 Criminal Law Journal 97. It appears from the facts stated in the judgment of the Kerala High Court that the sample was first analysed by the Public Analyst and thereafter it was analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory also showed that the article was adulterated. It Was contended on behalf of the accused that it was a case of marginal difference and therefore the accused was entitled to be acquitted. That contention found favour With the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate who acquitted the accused. The matter was taken in appeal by the State of Kerala and it Was heard by a Pull Bench of that Court. While disagreeing with the view of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate the Full Bench has made the following observations at paras. 14 15 16 and 17 of the report:

(3.) This decision came to be referred to before the Supreme Court in the case or Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh 1975 Criminal Law Journal 998 and the Supreme Court has also approved the ratio of the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court has reproduced the observations of the Kerala High Court at para. 15 at para. 4 of its judgment.