Subhagmal Jain, J. - (1.) By the judgment dated Dec. 13, 1978, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, has acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Section 7/16 and 14/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The accused respondents were partners of the firm M/s Kishan Vanaspati Traders situated at Dhan-mandi, Jodhpur. They were tried for the aforesaid offences for the reason that the firm had not issued a warranty as required under Section 14 of the Act while selling the tins of vegetable oil to M/s Mishri Lal Prabhati Lal Panwar on Nov. 17, 1974, and that they were not in possession of a licence required under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules framed under the Act.
(2.) I have heard the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 14/16 of the Act by giving them the benefit of the amendment made in Section 14 of the Act on April 1, 1976. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has followed the decision of Vishnu Avatar v. State, 1978 Cr. L.J. (All) 1664 of Allahabad High Court which lays down that section 14 deals with the procedural aspect of the case and the accused are entitled to the benefit of the amendment. As regards the violation of Rule 50, it is suffice to make a reference to the proviso to the rule itself which provides that the fruit products covered under Fruit Products Order, 1955, solvent extracted oils and edible flour covered under the Solvent Extracted Oils, De-oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) order, 1967, and Vanaspati covered under the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, shall be exempted from the above rule.
(3.) For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. State appeal dismissed.;