V.P.Mathur - (1.) I have heard Sri B. N. Upadhyaya for the complainant, Sri J. N. Chaturvedi for the respondents and the Standing Counsel, who represents the State of U. P.
(2.) THIS appeal raises a legal point. The learned Magistrate, Tst Class, Agra, has vide his order dated 30-3-1977 acquitted the accused Shital Prasad and Tirloki Nath on a charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that the Food Inspector has not been able to prove that he had jurisdiction in the locality from which the sample was obtained. It is not disputed that Mr. V. N. Kulshresthra was the Food Inspector, who took the sample in this case and he was posted in Agra. An earlier case of Hira Lal v. State, 1981 ACrR 76 was reconsidered by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kedarnath v. State of U. P., 1984 ACrR 266 and it was held that in view of the notification no. 7315/xvi-x-722/55, dated November 22nd, 1973, all the Food Inspectors in U. P. have jurisdiction over the whole district in which they are posted irrespective of the appointment as Food Inspector under notification no. 120/xvi-ii-722/S5 dated April 15, 1968. In this view of the law, the basis for the decision of this case has been wrong and the judgment stands vitiated. Since the learned Magistrate has not disposed of the matter on merit, it is necessary that the case should go back in remand for retrial according to law. Consequently this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate for retrial and decision in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.;