FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. SHAIK NISAR AHMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI. I. Balaiah, learned counsel for the appellant rightly complains that one of the reasons assigned by the learned magistrate that 'Ice -Candy' is not an article of food within the meaning of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 is untenable and does not stand scrutiny in view of the definition of 'Ice-Candy' as amended by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1976. The amended definition makes it clear that 'Ice-Candy' is an article of food. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate lost sight of the amended definition of 'Ice-Candy'.

(2.) I must, however, observe that the other reason assigned by the learned Magistrate that contravention of the provision of Rule 7 (3) of the Rules made under the Act, does not merit acceptance of the report of the Public Analyst to sustain conviction of an accused person under the Act, is sound. It is not denied that the report of the Public Analyst was despatched by the Public Analyst 45 days after receipt of the sample by him. The object of Rule 7 (3) of the Rules is that within the stipulated time, the report of the public analyst should be despatched, as otherwise that weight or sanctity attached to his report would not be there. In my view, the provisions of Rule 7 (3) of the Rules are mandatory in character and any infraction or violation thereof doe* not justify acceptance of the report of the Public Analyst to sustain conviction of an accused person under the Act. In this view the order of acquittal of the respondent accused passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Crl. A. dismisied.