STATE OF H.P. Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent Balbir Singh was convicted for committing an, offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), for selling adulterated milk on 4 -2 -1986 at village Bhoop Pur in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H. P. to the Food Inspector Sh, K. P. Garg and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, vide judgment dated 31 -5 -1988, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. This conviction and sentence order was assailed before Sessions Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan who after hearing the parties, accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentenced passed against the convict and acquitted him.

(2.) The State has assailed the aforesaid acquittal order passed by the lower Appellate Court on various grounds.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On the basis of submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties, following points require determination of this Court in the present appeal: (1) What is the effect of delayed launching of the prosecution to the right of the accused as provided under section 13 (2) of the Act ? (2) Whether sanction granted under section 20 of the Act for the prosecution of the accused was a valid sanction and has been accorded by the competent authority after application of mind ? (3) Whether the provisions of Rule 18 of the Act have or have not been complied with, if so, its effect ? In order to dispose of the aforesaid points of detemination, some facts relevant in that regard are required to be dealt with.