STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the acquittal is after grant of leave by this Court on 13.1.76 against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, dated 16.8.77 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The Food Inspector Sardar Singh visited the shop of accused-respondent Babulal on 4.7.74 at 7.00 P.M.and obtained 450 Gms. of chilly powder as sample for analysis, which was later on sent to the Public Analyst who found the same to be adulterated as it did not contain the prescribed standard under the rules. Roughly 2 ash content was more than the prescribed limit. The Food Inspector after necessary sanction submitted a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, who after trial acquitted the accused relying on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1975 F.A.J. 146 It is against this order of acquittal that the leave application was filed and the appeal has come up after grant of leave.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court was in error in acquitting the accused on the ground that lesser quantity of sample was obtained and proper analysis could not be done. He has relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Das Raj and another, 1958 F.A.J. 156 a Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court wherein Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was held to be directed. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar Sawasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra Vs. Mohammed Rafiq, 1985 F.A.J. 198 where to also the similar view was taken.