STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question arising for determination in the present appeal preferred by the State under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the acquittal of the Respondent, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, vide impugned judgment, dated 15.7.1994, is:

(2.) The Respondent was sent up for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2), Amb, for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for having been found selling adulterated turmeric powder (Haldi) to the general public. Upon such trial, the Respondent was convicted for the offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, vide judgment dated 30.3.1993.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge without going into the merits of the case, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Respondent on the ground that the learned Magistrate had failed to follow the mandatory provisions contained in Section 16-A of the Act and as such the trial stood vitiated. In coming to such conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Jude had placed reliance on and followed the ratio laid down by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Shiv Dass,1972 FAJ 163.