RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because non-compliance with the provision of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P. F. Act) read with rule 9a of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules' ). The accused has been denied a valuable right given to him u/s 13 (2) of the P. F. Act. Though this point does not appear to have been taken either in the trial court or in the appellate court, but it is a point that can be decided on the available material and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to agitated this ground.

(2.) THE accused petitioner has been convicted u/s 7/16 of P. F. Act and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate while convicting the accused petitioner as aforesaid under his judgment dated 11. 10. 1984 sentenced to him undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. THE aforesaid conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Baran, District Kota under his judgment dated 7. 9. 1988.