STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dated 2.8.2002 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin convicting the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THIS appeal can be disposed of on a short legal ground. Admittedly, the Food Inspector in the present case purchased only 600 grams of Urad Whole ˜Daal. He divided the same into three portions of 200 grams each and one part of 200 grams was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat. Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as it stood prior to its amendment on 29.7.2002 provided that in case of pulses covered under item No.19, the quantity of the sample required to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was 250 grams. The learned Court below held that since adequate quantity was not sent to the Public Analyst, the report of the Public Analyst could not be relied upon.

(3.) NO law to the contrary has been brought to my notice. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that in the present case also, there has been infraction of Rule 22 and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the report of the Public Analyst.