STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents were tried and acquitted, for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act), for the failure of sample of salt, in Criminal case No.134-I of 1994 (66-III of 1994), decided on 27.8.1999 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE instant appeal has been filed by the State having felt aggrieved that though, the independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, yet the testimony of the Food Inspector was self explicit and comprehensive to sustain the conviction. The trial court had wrongly held that the sanction was not proper which has caused the miscarriage of justice.

(3.) IN response, the learned counsel for the respondents S/Shri Raman Sethi and Sanjeev Kumar have vehemently argued that sanction letter exhibits the total non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority while according the sanction under Section 20 of the Act and further that sampling was not done in accordance with law. Thus, both the learned counsel have supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.