STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ASHOK OIL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order governs an adjudication of criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 5. 1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura Distt. Tonk whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents namely Ratan Lal S/o Ramswaroop Vijay, Shambhoodayal S/o Bajranglal, Prabhudayal S/o Ramgopal, Rakesh Kumar S/o Satyanarain, Nathulal S/o Ramavatar and Ashok Oil Industries through Ratanlal S/o Ramswaroop Vijay in the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act 1954 ).

(2.) THE nub of the appellant's story is that on 29. 6. 1991, PW. 1 Trilok Chand Jain, Food Inspector of District Tonk reached at about 1. 30 PM at Ashok Oil Industries situated at Adarsh Nagar, Malpura where the accused -respondent Ratanlal S/o Ramswaroop was found present as seller. THE complainant found 20 tins of Mustard oil lying inside the oil industry. Having suspected the oil being adulterated, the Food Inspector took 375 grams sample of oil in a steel jug for analysis and paid price thereof to the accused respondent Ratan Lal. THE sample was equally divided in three parts and filled in three small bottles which were accordingly sealed as per the requirement of law. One such sealed sample of mustered oil was sent for chemical analysis to public Analyst, Jaipur a report of which was received on 28th October, 1991. THE sample of the said mustered oil which was sent for chemical examination was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard. Having obtained the prosecution sanction from the competent authority, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura Distt. Tonk against the accused respondents who after trial acquitted them for the aforesaid charge.

(3.) IN the case of State of Raj. vs. Ravi Kumar, RLW 2003 (2) Raj. 925, this Court has observed that the accused has a valuable right of getting the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory and if he is deprived of this valuable right by the prosecution then in the event of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) and Rule 9-A framed thereunder entitles the accused for acquittal.