STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial Court found the respondent to have committed an offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the sole ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act had not been complied with. Thus, the above appeal came to be filed.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State pointed out that there is a conflict of decisions of this Court on the question whether. Section 13 (2) of the Act is mandatory or directory. In State of Haryana v. Joginder Singh 1983(1) F.A.C. 80 and State of Haryana v. Hari Chand 1983(1) F.A.C. 274, the Division Benches expressed the view that the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act are mandatory. A contrary view was taken by a Division Bench in State of Haryana vs Amar Nath 1983 (1) F.A.C. 234 wherein the Judges have expressed the view that Section 13 (2) of the Act is not mandatory.

(3.) IN the above view of the settled legal position that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act vitiate the proceedings and there being no dispute with regard to the fact that in this case mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act have not been followed, the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with.