CHHOGARAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rewachand submits that the judgment of this Court reported in 1977 RLW 29 is based on the interpretation of the unamended rule in which one of the samples was given to the accused. He contends that according to the amended rule all the three samples are taken away by the Inspector who deposits the same in the Health Department and the accused cannot get the opportunity of having one sample for getting it tested by the Chemical Analyser independently. Mr. Calla appearing on behalf of the state agrees so far as change in the law is concerned.

(2.) Mr. Rewachand relies upon the judgment Bhola Nath Vs. State, 1977 Cr.L.J. 154 in which the Calcutta High Court has interpreted rule 9(J) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules in its amended form. He submits that the Calcutta High Court has held this requirement to be mandatory.

(3.) Admit. Issue notice. Mr. H. N. Calla accepts notice on behalf of the State. Call for the record, and then put up for hearing.