AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1Â The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahiwadi, Satara acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)
(a), 2(ia)(m) and under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2002. Against it, this Appeal
has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Trial Judge acquittedÂ
the accused on the following two grounds:
(1) Prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of food article, i.e., of “Tata Iodised Salt†was collected from the
shop owned by the Accused No.2 in presence of independent witness inÂasÂmuch as P.W.2 had deposed that his signature was obtained on the
blank paper;
(2) Mandate of provisions of Section 13(2) was not followed inÂasÂmuch as the report of the result of analysis was not forwarded to accused which
defeats his valuable right to get the sample of article of food kept by the local (Health Authorities) analysed by Central Food Laboratory.
2Â Heard the learned the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused evidence on record.
3 Admittedly, mandate of provisions of Section 13(2) has not been followed which is a valuable right available to the Accused to get the sample
analyzed from Central Food Laboratory. In the case of Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1995 Supp.