- (1.) It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that this case is clearly covered by our decision in the case of State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammed. The respondent however has argued that since the offence was committed in 1975 and in view of the sudden change of the law laid down by this court, a logical view of the matter may be taken.
(2.) As the order of acquittal passed by the magistrate was wrong in law, we set aside the same and convict respondent 1 (Firm known as M/s Baboo Ram Shyam Sunder) and respondent 2 (Baboo Ram) under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As regards the sentence, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and of the fact that the law was changed by this court long after the acquittal of the respondent, we release respondent 2 on probation for a period of two years on execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000. 00 with two sureties each in thelike amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We also impose a fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 on respondent 1 and one of Rs. 2,000. 00 on respondent 2. In default of payment of fine imposed on respondent 2, he shall suffer a rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fines shall be deposited within two months from today. Respondents 1 and 2 shall further give an undertaking to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that they shall not indulge in any kind of adulteration in future.
(3.) Acquittal of respondent 3 (Shyam Sunder) is maintained.;