A.N.Dikshita - (1.) THIS appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17-1-19/7, passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Agra, acquitting respondents Davan Dass, Janjit Singh and Jagmohan Singh of the offence under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in Criminal Cases Nos. 396 and 320 of 1976.
(2.) THE sole ground on which the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the Magistrate is that the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act were not complied with inasmuch as a lesser quantity of Haldi powder was taken by way of samples from each of the respondents on the basis of which the Public Analyst reported that the samples were adulterated. THE ground taken by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the respondents is no more a good law. In State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohd., 1978 ACrR 300, the Supreme Court has held that if the quantity sent to the Public Analyst, even though it is lesser than the prescribed, is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst to make correct analysis then merely because the quantity sent was not in strict compliance with the Rule, it will not result in the nullification of the report and obliterate its evidentiary value. This follows that if the Public Analyst considered the quantity of Haldi powder taken from the respondents sufficient for analysis and did not report to the contrary,jit could not be said that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules and the respondents were entitled to be acquitted. In this view of the matter the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate deserved setting aside by this Court and necessitated the remand of the case for a fresh trial. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, cited S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd., 1986 ACrR 117, where the Supreme Court in similar circumstances as in this case set aside the judgment of the High Court remanding the case holding that whatever might have been the error committed by the Magistrate, it was not just and proper for the High Court to have remanded the case for fresh trial when the order of acquittal had been passed nearly six years before the judgment of the High Court. It was further observed that in the circumstances the High Court should have directed dropping of the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. In the instant case before me the order of acquittal was passed nearly 11 years ago. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Guin's case (supra) I do not consider it to be a fit case for remand and to order retrial. As such the order of acquittal has to be maintained.
(3.) IN the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and the order of acquittal is maintained. Appeal dismissed.;