SHAMRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS there is a welter of judicial opinion as to the interpretation of rule 9 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the matter has been referred to us by the learned single Judge. This rule is in these terms :

(2.) IT may be pointed out that the above rule existed on the statute shamrao vs. The State of Maharashtra (25. 03. 1980 - BOMHC) Page 1 of 4 book between the period 13-2-1974 to 1-4-1976. The Rule came to be repealed after 1-4-1976 and is now substituted by a new Rule 9-A.

(3.) RULE 9 (i) as it existed and by which the matter, in hand, is governed had come up for consideration in State of Maharashtra v. Jesti Dosa (1978 Cri LJ 427) (Bom), before Naik, J. , who held that the Rule was intended to be mandatory. This view was approved of by Kambli, J. in sureshchandra v. The State of Maharashtra (Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 146 of 1977 decided on 16th November 1978 ). Further the view of Naik, J. , in Jesti Dosa's case was followed recently by Deshmukh, C. J. , in S. G. Chandansa v. Taminuddin (1979 (1) FAC 230 ).