STATE Vs. LACHMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an appellate order dated the 23rd of October, 1953, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah by which he set aside the conviction and sentence of Lakshmi Chand passed by a Magistrate on the 17th of July 1953, under Section 17 of the U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912). The sentence was a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- only. The learned Magistrate found that on the 2nd of January, 1953. Lakshmi Chand was found selling and storing ghee for sale without a license, the license having been required under Section 16 of the U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912) as amended by Acts 1 of 1956, 2 of 1930 and 13 of 1932 and under Rules which have been framed by the local Government under that Act. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912) was repealed by the U. P. Pure Food Act (No. XXXII of 1950), (wrongly quoted by the Judge as Act No. XXIII of 1950), and that since the judgment of the Magistrate was pronounced on the 17th of July, 1953, after the U.P. Pure Food Act of 1950 came into force, the conviction for an offence under an enactment which on the date of the conviction did not exist, was illegal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal upon that technical point alone and he did not consider the matter upon the other grounds that were set out in the grounds of appeal.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous and that the attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not drawn to Section 50 of the U. P. Pure Food Act of 1950 which itself provides that any proceedings instituted for other thing done under the provisions of the U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, No. VI of 1912, shall not be invalidated by the repeal but shall have effect as if it had been made, passed or given under a corresponding provision, and in the case of any legal proceeding it may be continued and appealed against as if U. P Act No. XXXII of 1950 had not been passed.

(3.) Section 16 of the U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, No. VI of 1912, is as follows: