STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PUNNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for determination in this Criminal Revision is whether the provisions of R.7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred 10 as the Rules) are mandatory or directory.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a sample of Ajwain was taken from respondent-accused, Punnu Ram, from his shop at village Gerna on July 19, 1982 by the Food Inspector. After completing the legal formalities, it was sent to the Public Analyst who found it to be adulterated. This resulted in the launching of prosecution against the respondent.

(3.) At the stage of framing of the charge-sheet, a preliminary point was raised that the Public Analyst had not complied with the mandatory provisions of R.7(3) ibid inasmuch as his report of the result of analysis was not delivered to the Local (Health) Authority within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the sample and that the said violation was fatal. This objection found favour with the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, who vide his order dated Oct. 15, 1983, discharged the respondent of the offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved from the aforesaid decision, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present revision petition.