LAWS(MPH)-1989-6-17

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF INDORE Vs. FATEHLAL

Decided On June 21, 1989
Municipal Corporation Of Indore Appellant
V/S
FATEHLAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipal Corporation, Indore has presented this appeal against the judgment dated 27.3.1985 delivered by Shri B.L. Verma, the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 24/84. By the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal presented by the respondent (appellant before him) and acquitted him of the conviction and sentence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and set aside the sentence of 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000 imposed against convict/respondent.

(2.) At the hearing today before me Shri J.S. Dhanji, learned Counsel representing the Municipal Corporation, Indore submitted that acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge o the ground of non-compliance or improper compliance with section 13(2) of the Act aforesaid, was in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Food Inspector Nagar Palika Mandsaur Vs. Devilal Ramchandra, 1985 EFR 64 (FB) (M.P.) holding that the provisions of Sec. are not mandatory but are directory, could not stand. He further submitted that as far the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that due to variance in the report of public analyst and Central Food Laboratory, no case against the accused was made out. The report of the Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive and if, the same be taken into consideration and that of Public Analyst ignored, a case of selling adulterated milk against the respondent would be made out.

(3.) Shri S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent while not dis outing the above legal position submitted that in view of the recent amendment made in 1988 by an Amending Act (Act No. 19 of 1988), repealing the amendments made in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act, 1976 and recent decision of this Court, only nominal sentence of fine should be imposed against respondent. Particularly because, the matter has been pending for the last 12 years. In that connection he referred the following decisions.