STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State, after grant of leave by this Court, has filed this appeal against the Order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Pali dated 19. 9. 1978. by which he acquitted the respondents Rama and Kammu for offence under Section 16/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, mainly on the ground that Rule 9 (j) of the rules framed under the said Act had not been complied with. According to him the provisions of this rule were mandatory. I have heard the learned P. P. and have gone through the record. THE respondents have not appeared despite service.

(2.) LEAVE to appeal had been granted in this case on the ground that in 1977 Cr. L. R. (Rajasthan) 17, it was held vide para 15 of the report that rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, Rules, 1955 cannot be held to be mandatory. It may be noted that the sample of the milk had been taken as far back as on 13-10,69. The respondent had suffered a protracted trial till 19. 9. 78 that is for almost about nine years and an appeal has now come up for hearing in July, 1988 after another about nine years. The offence against the respondents was of selling adulterated milk. According to the report of the Public Health Laboratory, the sample contained 3. 5% Fat and 7. 0% Solid not fat. The standard of cow's milk prescribed under the Rules is 3. 5% Fat contents and 8. 5% solid not fat contents. Looking to all these circumstances, now, it will not be proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the acquittal of the respondents and convict and sentence them to any punishment. In this view of the matter, I need not go into the question whether the provisions of Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration is mandatory or not.