NATHULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sirohi dated 5-8-77 by which the coviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 16 (l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (thereinafter to be referred 'as the Act') and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine Rs. 1000.00, in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment was upheld and affirmed. The matter relates to the seizure of the Barfi said to have been mixed with non-permitted coal tar dye.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the courts below on the legal ground that there being no compliance of Rules 7 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the conviction is not justified. He referred to the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramashai and The State of Rajasthan Vs. Banshilal, Cr. L.R. (Raj) page 60 . and Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1980 page 223 . where the Provisions of the aforesaid Rules have been held to be mandatory and non-compliance of the same has been held to be damaging to the prosecution case. The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly agreed that the compliance of the aforesaid Rules has not been made in the present case but his submission is that it being a technical flaw the judgments of the courts below should not be set a side.

(3.) The present case is fully covered by the two authorities cited above. The perusal of the record clearly indicates that there was no compliance of the aforesaid Rules and it is nowhere found that the outer cover reached in the sealed condition to the Public Analyst and he had an occasion to examine those seals. I have also gone through the occular evidence to find out of there is any material to suggest the compliance to that effect and found that the statement of PW 1 Dr. Govind Singh Gehlot is also silent on the point. This being the position, I find full force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the non-compliance of the directive provision of Rule 7 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable.