(1.) - By my judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1982, I rejected the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ganatra on the question of the maintainability of this appeal. He had contended that the appeal was barred by time and the delay in the filing of the appeal could not be condoned. In that judgment, however, one serious error has crept in where I have mentioned that the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not cognizable offences. This is to be found in paragraph 16 of the judgment. Mr. Ganatra has been gracious enough to show me today this error which has crept in paragraph 16 of the judgment. A proper examination of the relevant provisions of both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act shows that the offence under the Act are cognizable offences.
(2.) Section 2(c) of the Code defines cognizable offences to mean an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. The First Schedule to the Code mentions that offences against laws other than the Indian Penal Code shall be regarded as cognizable if they are punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than seven years. These offences are triable by a Court of Session. Offences under other laws are also cognizable if they are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards bur not more than seven years. These offences are triable by a Magistrate of First Class. Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or six years or even with life imprisonment.
(3.) This error which has crept in paragraph 16 of the judgment, however, makes no difference to the conclusion which has been otherwise arrived at in the said judgment. Subject to the mentioning of this part of this judgment, the judgment delivered on 22nd November, 1982 may be reported, if so desired.