HARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the report of Public Analyst (Annexure P2) fastened the petitioner with the liability under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. It has been further contended that subsequently report of Central food Laboratory had come which had absolved the petitioner.

(2.) THERE is no doubt in the legal position that report of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report of Public Analyst. In view of this, there can be no prosecution of the petitioner. But this fact is to be determined by the trial Court. In case trial Court comes to the conclusion that report of central Food Laboratory had absolved the petitioner, there shall be no other course available to the trial Court except to discharge the accused. The contention raised before me be raised before the trial Court who shall determine this fact within 15 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order accordingly.