HASMUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL (VENDOR) Vs. NITINKUMAR JASHVANTLAL GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants-original accused have prayed for the following reliefs;

(2.) The prosecution instituted against the writ applicants herein is for the offence of misbranding punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules 1955. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.1-original complainant collected a sample of water pouch from the shop of the writ applicants for the purpose of analysis. The report of the public analyst reads as under;'Form III[ See Rule 7(3)][Report of the Public Analyst]No.FDL/Food/AR/2003Report No.Q3/416/2003Entry No.1848Date:-

(3.) According to the report of the public analyst, the sample of drinking water is misbranded as defined under section 2(ix) (k) of the Act as the same does comply with the Rules 32(c)(f) and 49(28) of the Rules, 1955.