STATE Vs. MALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This State appeal has been filed u/s. 378(iii) & (i) of the Code Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 23.6.1987 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 28/84 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act').

(2.) It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the PFA Act r/w R. 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') are not mandatory in nature and the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused of the offence charged. According to him a sample of Jalebi taken from the shop of the accused was found to be adulterated in the report of Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur, therefore, the order passed by learned trial Court deserves to be set aside and consequently the accused-respondent is liable to be convicted for the offence charged with.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for accused-respondent argued that the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the PFA Act r/w R. 9-A of the Rules of 1955 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of it has deprived the respondent of his right, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Honourable Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SCW 2866 - State of Orissa Vs. Gauranga Sahu and a decision of this Court in 2002 (2) RCC 1044 State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravi Kumar .