- (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29. 7. 1995 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, kishangarh, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial court)in Criminal Case No. 85/1991 by which by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of food Adulteration Act. In brief, the facts of the case are as under: a complaint was filed on 20. 6. 1991 by food inspector Laxmi Narayan against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this appeal, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused-respondent where he purchased the "tilli Ka Tal" from the shop of accused respondent, where he sent to those oil to the public analyst where a report received in which it is found that this oil was adulterated. But, it is surprised that without framing the charge and recording the statement, this order was passed only on the ground that sample was not to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13/2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned counsel for the accused respondent has cited the following judgments: s. M. Milkosh Limited v. State of Raj. which runs as under: prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954, Section 13 (2b)-Sending of Second sample to Central Food laboratory for examination on cost of rs. 1,000-Held, Section 13 (2b) imposes legal duty on the Court to send sample to CFL, without charging any money from accused. The right bestowed under Section 13 on accused to get the sample analyzed from CFL cannot be made illusory by imposing a condition upon accused to deposit money order quashed ordered to get the sample analyzed without cost. (Paras 4 and 5) petition disposed of.
(2.) PADAM Chand v. State of Rajasthan which runs as under: "prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954-Section 13 (2) -Sample of Burfi taken found adulterated petitioner requested the court fro sending the second sample to the Director--Director reported the same to be decomposed and not fit for aqnalysis-since the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public analyst and if the direcfor has been unable to example the sample of the food stuff, sent to him, due to the same having become deteriorated and thus not fit for his analysis and no fault in that behalf is attributable to the accused, the Magistrate cannot fall back to the report of the Public Analyst for the conviction of the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act continuation of these criminal proceedings against the petitioner simply amount to abuse of the process of the court of the learned magistrate and in order to secure the ends of justice,'such abuse of process of Magistrate's court is required to be done away with and brought to an end. The proceedings against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate are required to be quashed and dropped. "
(3.) RATAN Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which runs as under: pfa Act-Section 13 (2) -Old Section and after 1976 amended Section-Under the old section payment of fees by accused for getting examined the sample by the director CFL, was a precondition and amount of fees by prescribed by Rajasthan Rules. After amendment condition of payment of fees is omitted. Held as law has does not provide for payment of fees rajasthan Rule cannot override law and one rendered nugatory. Order set aside fees not payable".;