STATE Vs. DEVICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi by which he acquitted the accused of the offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with section 7 thereof.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 10-3-68, at about 11 a.m., the Food Inspector, Sirohi purchased til oil from the accused from his shop situate in village Las. He divided the sample into three parts and sent one part for chemical examination. The Public Analyst found the til oil adulterated. Upon challan, the prosecution examined three witnesses and closed the evidence. The accused was also examined and he refused to lead any evidence in defence. This happened on 15-5-69.

(3.) The learned Magistrate remained on tour on several dates and was able to hear arguments only on 26. 11.69. Therefore, he could not write judgment for about six months and on 2-5-70, he wrote a snap judgment in which he observed that the evidence disclose that the Food Inspector got the signatures on panchnama after he had put the oil into the bottles. Such evidence was considered insufficient by him and he acquitted the accused on the ground that he was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the accused did not defend the judgment but he pleaded that the acquittal should not be set aside for the following reasons:-