State of Himachal Pradesh vs Keshav Chand

Bhawani Singh J.

By this appeal, the State assails the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harhirpur, in case No. 5-IH/82 decided on 20-3-1985 acquitting the accused of offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i). Of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The facts, in brief, are that the Food Inspector, Shri T.S. Verma, visited the premises of the accused and took sample of biscuits for analysis after undergoing all procedural formalities. This was done on 29-11-1981. On analysis, vide report Ex. PE, the Public Analyst declared the result as under:

Added colouring matter=Acid coal tar dyes, sunset yellow and Tartrazine present.

Ash insoluble in dil Hcl 0.16%.

Alcoholic acidity of Extracted fat = 0.8;

Taste = slightly gritty.

and it was opined that the ash insoluble in dil Hcl was in excess by 0.06% than maximum prescribed limit.

Prosecution was launched against the accused but ultimately the accused was acquitted by the impugned judgment.

The learned Counsel for the parties made their respective submissions. The first submission related to the violation of the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and it was contended by Shri J.R. Thakur, learned Counsel f appearing for the accused, that this provision being mandatory '' in nature, the prosecution was bad and the trial court judgment on this issue was illegal. Reference to Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, was made. This judgment does not apply to the present case as no point under Rule 7(3) of the Rules was decided, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused.

Shri J.R. Thakur cited 1983 FAJ 130 (State of Punjab v. Jai Gopal) as well as 1989 FAJ 15 (State of Maharashtra v. Sahaji Gajanan Jadhav). These judgments, of course, hold that the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Rules are mandatory; but in y view of the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Punnu Ram 1985(1) F.A.C. 91, holding that this Rule is not mandatory, this point is decided against the Respondent-accused.

Shri J.R. Thakur has submitted that there is no sanction in this case to prosecute his client. There is substance in this argument as there is no sanction available in accordance with law on the record of this case. In view of this, the proceedings initiated against the accused are illegal and without jurisdiction.

The result is, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Personal bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby cancelled.