HARBANS SINGH RAI, J. - (1.) A complaint under Section 16(1)(a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was filed against Dharamveer respondent on the allegation that a sample of fruit ice cream taken from his possession was found to be adulterated. The sample was taken on May 30, 1983.
(2.) SHRI A. C. Aggarwal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot discharged the respondent vide order dated April 8, 1985. The State of Punjab feeling aggrieved has filed this revision against the order of discharge. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate has discharged the respondent mainly relying upon Lekh Raj. v. State of Punjab, 1980 C.L.R. (Punjab and Haryana) 148. In the said case a sample of fruit cream was seized and the Court held that fruit cream cannot be equated with ice-cream and as there is no standard for fruit cream, the question of any adulteration does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the seized sample was of fruit ice-cream, So the authority relied upon does not apply to the facts of this case.;