NANAK RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed against Nanak Ram. On Oct. 17. 1977 the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application to implead Jaman Dass and Gurnamal. On the application filed by the Food Inspector, Kota. the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kota took cognizance against accused Nos. 2 and 3 also. An application was filed before the learned Magistrate on behalf of the accused for quashine the proceedings on the ground that compliance of the provisions of Clause (i) of Rule 9 of -the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was not made. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the objections raised before him could be decided after recording of the evidence at the time of final arguments of the case and rejected the application. He subsequently framed charge against the accused for selling adulterated 'kali Mirch'. Being aggrieved of the order dated August G. 1980 and framing of the charge the accused filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 1973 in this Court, which came up for decision before Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. B. Sharma (as he then was ). Learned Judge, referred the application to the larger Bench for decision, because in his view the provisions of Rule 9 (i) of the Rules are directory, whereas a single Bench of this Court in Chas held that Rule 9 (j) of the Rules is mandatory.

(2.) A single Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party in Shakoor v. State 1977 (2) FAC 83 : 1977 Cri LJ NOC 238 by detailed discussion after making reference to the observations made in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edition Vol. I. passe 379 and other cases held:

(3.) A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court, in Kashmiri Lai v. State of Haryana AIR 1982 NOC 126 : 1982 Cri LJ 311 held Rule 9 (ii) of the Rules to be directory and not mandatory. Their Lordships observed as under: