AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. None has however appeared on behalf of the Respondents-accused even though the list has been revised.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that only on one score, the case of the prosecution has been found to be lacking and as such the acquittal has been recorded by the court below. The report of Central Food Laboratory was though obtained but no fresh sanction for prosecution after that report has been given by the authority nor fresh launching of the prosecution has been done and for that reason only the case has ended into acquittal. Learned Counsel has cited the case law of Food Inspector, Ernakulam and Another Vs. P.S. Sreenivasa Shenoy, , and has submitted that neither such fresh launching of the prosecution on the basis of the report of Central Food Laboratory is required in such matters nor there is any need of obtaining fresh sanction for prosecution from the competent authority. In the aforesaid case, it has been specifically held by the Apex Court that in such cases the report of Central Food Laboratory obtained during the course of trial shall be treated as piece of evidence by the Court and no fresh prosecution by turning the key backward is required. The Full Bench decision of Himachal High Court in Ratan Lal v. State of H. P. (1989) 2 FAC 190, which was relied upon by the court below, has been overruled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Food Inspector (supra).
In the aforesaid circumstances, the leave to appeal is hereby allowed and the appeal be admitted.
The office is directed to prepare the paper book in the instant case and list in due course for final hearing.