STATE Vs. JAI NARAYAN AND SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals filed by the State after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(iii) CrPC, raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 401 of 1977, the respondent is Jainarayan who was running a sweetmeat shop at Gangapur in District Bhilwara. On 14.1.76 at 12.00 p.m. Shri Prakash Chandra, PW 1, Food Inspector, Gangapur went to the shop of the respondent and found him selling 'Moong Laddoos'. Suspecting the 'Laddoos' to be adulterated, he purchased 1.5 kg. off 'Laddoos' after paying him a sum of Rs. 15/ -. The said 'Laddoos' were divided into three portions, and were placed in three separate bottles which were separately sealed in the presence of motbirs. One of the sample bottles was given to the respondent and one of the said bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer, along with memorandum Ex P 5. The report Ex.P 6 received from the Public Analyst showed that the ghee in the sample of the 'Laddoos' was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. Thereupon, after obtaining necessary sanction Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Food Inspector filed a complaint in respect of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur. The Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 6 -6 -77, acquitted the respondent on the view that there was non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ) in as much as there was no evidence on the record to show that the Food Inspector had sent to the Public Analyst separately the specimen impression of the seal with which the packet containing the sample had been sealed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, the State has filed this appeal before this Court after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(iii), Cr. PC.

(3.) THE question which arises for consideration in both these appeals is as to whether the judicial Magistrate was right in holding that where was non -compliance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules in the facts and circumstances of these cases Rule 18 of the Rules lays down that a copy of the memrandum (referred to in Rule 17) and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to any person authorised by him.