STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was tried for an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) on the allegation that the sample of milk taken on 19.11.1985 from him was found to be adulterated. Sample was sent for analysis to Central Food Laboratory and was again found to be adulterated. The trial court acquitted the accused on the sole ground that a fresh complaint was required to be filed when report of Central Laboratory was obtained as the earlier complaint was based on report of the Public Analyst which stood superseded by the report of re-analysis under section 13(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Manohar Lal v. State, 1989 1 RCR(Cri) 248 and Single Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 CrLJ 2875.

(2.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the view taken by the learned trial court in erroneous in law. It was held in Manohar Lal's case supra that the sanction must be based on application of mind and in Rattan Lal's case supra, it was held that when there is a wide difference in the two reports, fresh sanction was necessary under section 20(1) of the Act.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the State and perused the record.