FOOD INSPECTOR MANDSAUR NAGAR PALIKA Vs. DAVILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this reference made by one of us (K.L. Shrivastava, J) is whether the provisions of S.13(2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act') and of R.9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') are mandatory or directory.

(2.) The material facts are these : On 5-3-1978 the Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Mandsaur purchased milk from the respondent as sample for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who on analysis found that the sample was adulterated. The report of the public Analyst is dt. 13-3-1978. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent on 24-4-78.

(3.) The trial Magistrate held that the milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent was adulterated and convicted the respondent of the offence under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. On appeal by the respondent the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that the compliance of the mandatory provisions of S.13(2) of the Act was not proved. The Food Inspector has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.