- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Sri A.U. Khan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 30-5-1977 whereby he has acquitted the respondent Ram Gopal from the charges under S.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that in view of the law laid down in M.C.D. v. Gurdial Chandra, (1977) 1 F.A.C. 93 non-compliance with the Rules (sic) not only an injustice because the sample sent to Public Analyst was much shorter than what is the prescribed quantity, hence there was infringement of the Rules and the respondent was entitled to acquittal.
(2.) Sri B.N. Upadhya, brief-holder of Sri N.C. Upadhya, Advocate, has argued this appeal before me.
(3.) So far as back in the year 1975 the Supreme Court in the case of Rajal Dass G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1975 SC 189 was of the view that if the Public Analyst did not have the requisite quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis, there was bound to be caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice and that shortage of quantity for analysis was not permitted by the Statute. It was in the light of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in the present case because admittedly the sample of the article taken into custody from the accused respondent was deficient in quantity and hence in his view proper analysis was not possible.;