Farooq Hasan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The accused respondents were tried for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and they have been acquitted merely on the ground that the compliance of Sub-Rule-3 of Rule-4 has not been made.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State appellant submits that in view of the contents mentioned in Ex. P.12, it is abundantly clear that the compliance of said Rule has been properly made.
(3.) I have perused the document Ex P. 12 which shows that compliance of Sub-rule-3 of Rule-4 has been made. In this case the sample is alleged to have been taken in the year 1977. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another (1983 (1) SCC 135) has declined to interfere with the order of acquittal after elapsed of six years since purchase of the sample. So, while placing reliance on the case cited above, I am also of the opinion that it will not be fair and just to interfere in the judgment of acquittal after elapsed of about fourteen years.;