Gyani, J. - (1.)This appeal has been pending for the last three years for furnishing correct address of the accused-respondent. More than sixteen opportunities have been granted to the appellant for furnishing correct address. As it is, this is an appeal against acquittal. The accused-respondent, a milk vendor has been acquitted of the charge under section 7(1) and section 16(1)(A)( 1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, mainly on the ground of non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act.
(2.)Apparently section 13(2) of the Act has not been complied with. The trial Court followed two decisions of this Court as reported in Nathusingh Vs. State of M.P., 1982 JLJ 805, and State of M.P. Vs. Kalyanmal, 1984 MPLJ 398. Subsequently a Full Bench decision as reported in Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Vs. Devilal, 1985 JLJ 195 (FB), which held the view that section 13(2) of the Act was directory in nature and non-complicant thereof would not result in acquittal. Later on in Food Inspector, Nagar Palika's case (supra), held that the section 13(2) was merely directory.
(3.)It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused, following the judgments of this Court, which held the field till then, committed any error. If subsequently the view is changed by larger Bench decision which in fact has changed, to my mind this would not afford justifiable ground for interfering with the acquittal recorded by the trial Court, based as it is on the earlier view of this Court. It is also not questioned that the trial Court while recording the acquittal, over looked the latest decision of this Court. No doubt Full Bench decision of this Court as reported in Food Inspector Nagar Palika's case (supra) dated 14.12.1984 and the impugned judgment is dated 10.1.1985, it would be too much to expect of the trial Court to have come across the Full Bench judgment reported months after the delivery of the impugned judgment. In the circumstances the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be unreasonable.