FOOD INSPECTOR NAGARPALIKA UJHANI Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Food Inspector, Nagarpalika, Ujhani against the order of acquittal dated 4-1-1978 passed by Sri S.K. Lakhtia, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun acquitting the respondent Sohan Lal of the charge framed against him under Sec. 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) It appears that the case against the appellant was that he was selling adulterated vegetable oil on the date of occurrence namely 22-9-1973 at 9.30 a.m. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not enter into merits of the case and held that the prosecution of the respondent Sohan Lal was bad inasmuch as Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which prescribes that the Food Inspector must take 500 grams of vegetable oil for sample had not been followed and this rule was in his opinion mandatory, the conviction could not be sustained. In the result he has acquitted the respondent.

(3.) The Food Inspector has filed this appeal. The 'earned counsel for the appellant urged that at the time the learned Magistrate decided the case the view of the Supreme Court as propounded in R.G. Pamnani Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1975 (I) FAC 1 , was that Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was mandatory. But now the Supreme Court has over-ruled its earlier view and has held in State of Kerala Vs. Alassery Mohammad, 1978 (I) FAC 145 that the rule was merely directory and it was for the Public Analyst if the quantity of the sample was less, to say so. My attention has also been drawn to case of Ramdas Bhikaji Vs. Sadanand, 1979 (II) FAC 215 where under similar circumstances the order of acquittal was set aside. Applying this ruling the order of acquittal must be set aside. Appeal allowed.