Farooq Hasan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The accused-respondents were charged under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned trial Court found the accused-respondents guilty for the offence u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them one year RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/-to each. But the learned appellate Court vide its order dated 1-5-1982 acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that they have been deprived of the right as provided under Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and further on the ground that the sanction for prosecuting the accused-respondents was not proper.
(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor failed to point out the compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Food Adulteration Act.
(3.) There is no dispute that compliance of Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act is mandatory in nature and its non-compliance leads to prosecution. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case S. K. Ahuja & Another v. State & others S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 116/1986 , after following the decision taken by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation v. Gheesa Ram (AIR 1967 SC 970) .;