S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) This is an application preferred by the State against acquittal of the respondent for an offence under section 7 and section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as an Act).
(2.) The trial magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that (he provisions of section 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with as also on the ground that Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act have been infarcted.
(3.) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State pointed out: that there is a conflict of the decisions on question whether Sec. 13(2) of the Act is mandatory or directory. In State of Haryana Vs. Joginder Singh 1983(1) FAC 80 and State of Haryana Vs. Hari Chand 1983(l) FAC 274 the DB expressed the view that provision of section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory. A contrary view was taken by a DB in State Vs. Amar Nath 1983(1) FAC 234 wherein the judges have expressed the view that section 13(2) of the Act is not mandatory.;