Inderjit Singh, J. - (1.) STATE of Haryana has filed this appeal against accused/respondent Rajinder Singh challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 7.4.1999 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon, whereby Rajinder Singh has been acquitted of the charge framed as against him. The brief facts of the case as given in the judgment of learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon are as under: "In short, the case of the complainant is that on 30.10.91 at about 8.30 a.m., he had gone to the shop of the accused situated at Jind Road, Safidon. Accused was carrying on a tea shop there. Accused was having about 10 Kg. of cows milk for public sale in a 'Patila'. After disclosing his identity and serving notice in form VI under the Act, he had purchased 660 gram of cow's milk for Rs. 4. The milk was purchased after mixing the whole contents properly and made uniform for analysis. The milk was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean empty bottles. The required quantity of formalin was added as preservative. The bottles were sealed as per law. All other formalities which are required to be observed at the time of taking the sample were duly observed One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. The other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority along with two copies of form VII under the Act. A copy of the memo in form VII and a specimen impression of the seal was also sent to the Public Analyst Haryana by registered post on the next day. The Public Analyst Haryana submitted its report stating that the sample was found to be adulterated as milk fat was found to be deficient by 22.5% and milk solids not fat was found to be deficient by 29% of the minimum prescribed standard. After getting the instructions from the Local Health Authority, complainant filed the present complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act."
(2.) THE learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate relying upon the arguments of the defence counsel held that provision of Section 13(2B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are mandatory and there is non -compliance of this provision. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate had relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Lakhmi Chand FAC 1998 (2) 287, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 13(2B) of the Act are mandatory in nature and any delay in submitting the report by the CFL is fatal to the case of the complainant. Division Bench of this Court had also placed reliance upon two earlier judgments of Single Benches of this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana at the time of arguments has not shown any law contrary to these findings and the law laid down in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra). Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon on 7.4.1999 is correct and as per law and does not require interference from this Court. In no way, the findings can be held without any reasonable ground nor it can be held that these are against the law. Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.;