THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GAJANAN PIMPALA RAJMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahiwadi, Satara acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2002. Against it, this Appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused on the following two grounds:

(2.) Heard the learned the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused evidence on record.

(3.) Admittedly, mandate of provisions of Section 13(2) has not been followed which is a valuable right available to the Accused to get the sample analyzed from Central Food Laboratory. In the case of Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1995) Supp4 SCC 659, it is held thus;