N.S.A. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. HARISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Sri A.U. Khan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 18-5-1977 whereby he has acquitted the Respondent Harish Chandra from the charges under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that in view of the law laid down in K.V. Reddy Vs. State, (1976) (ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) noncompliance of Rule 22 not only causes infraction of the provisions but also results in injustice because the sample sent to Public Analyst was much shorter than what is the prescribed quantity, hence there was infringement of Rule 22 and the Respondent was entitled to acquittal.

(2.) Sri B.N. Upadhya, brief holder of Sri N.C. Upadhya Advocate has argued this appeal before me.

(3.) So far as back in the year 1975 the Supreme Court in the case of Rajal Dass G. Pamnani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 189 was of the view that if the Public Analyst did not have the requisite quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis, there was bound to be caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice and shortage of quantity for analysis was not permitted by the Statute. It was in the light of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in the present case because admittedly the sample of the article taken into custody from the accused-Respondent was deficient In quantity and hence in his view proper analysis was not possible.