ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16 -1 -1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in Criminal Case No. 2457 of 1983. By the impugned order the application of the revisionist for discharging him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called the Act, has been rejected.
(2.) SRI B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.C. Shukla for the opposite party have been heard. The brief facts of the case are that sample of mustered oil was taken from the revisionist. The Public Analyst found it adulterated because in his opinion argemone oil was mixed. The revisionist applied to get one sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, who also found the mustered oil to be adulterated under Section 2 (i a) (m) of the Act. The Court below framed the charges on 9 -5 -1983. In the charge mention of the Public Analyst report as well as of the Central Food Laboratory has been mentioned.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the case of S.T. Swami v. Amrit Lal M. Jani and another, 1979 (1) F.A.C. 276. This case law does not support the revisionist because it has been held in this case that once a charge is framed, there could not be a discharge and the only order which could be passed would be one of acquittal.;