State of Rajasthan Vs. Moti

State of Rajasthan vs Moti

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 01, 1987

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770406

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/770406
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
Decided On: Sep 01, 1987
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1978
Subject: Food Adulteration
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1)(a) & 11(1)(b) and Criminal Procedure Code--Appeal against acquittal--Sample taken in 1975--Sample not representative and not satisfying provisions of Section 11(1)(b)--Held, no useful purpose will be served by setting aside order of acquittal.;Appeal Dis...

Key legal issue: Food Adulteration
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Moti

Legal References

Cases Referred: Babu Lal v. State
Reported In: 1987WLN(UC)514

Excerpt

prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 - sections 16(1)(a) & 11(1)(b) and criminal procedure code--appeal against acquittal--sample taken in 1975--sample not representative and not satisfying provisions of section 11(1)(b)--held, no useful purpose will be served by setting aside order of acquittal.;appeal dismissed - - not satisfied by this, the state has filed the present appeal after obtaining leave under section 378(3) of the code of criminal procedure.sobhag mal jain, j.1. a sample of ghee weighing 375 gms. was taken by ganpat mal mathur, food inspector on july 22, 1975 from the shop of the accused respondent situate in sadar bazar, abu road. the sample was found to be adulterated & complaint in the court of chief judicial magistrate sirohi was filed by the food inspector on october 23, 1975. the accused was tried for the offence under section 16(1)(a) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. after trial the chief judicial magistrate held that the sample taken was not a representative sample and there was a complete non compliance of section 11(1)(b) of the act. following the judgment of the madhya pradesh high court in babu lal v. state 1976 faj 81, the learned chief judicial magistrate acquitted the accused. not satisfied by this, the state has filed the present appeal after obtaining leave under section 378(3) of the code of criminal procedure.2. the occurrence is 12 years' old. the sample was taken as back as on july 22, 1975. i have gone through the judgment of the learned chief judicial magistrate and i am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the acquittal of the appellant now after 12 years of the occurrence. the learned chief judicial magistrate has held that the sample taken was not a reprsentative sample and, therefore, there was a non-compliance of section 11(1)(b) of the act. taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, i consider that it is not a fit case for setting aside the acquittal of the respondent after the lapse of a period of 12 years.3. the result is that there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

1. A sample of Ghee weighing 375 Gms. was taken by Ganpat Mal Mathur, Food Inspector on July 22, 1975 from the shop of the accused respondent situate in Sadar Bazar, Abu Road. The sample was found to be adulterated & complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirohi was filed by the Food Inspector on October 23, 1975. The accused was tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After trial the Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the sample taken was not a representative sample and there was a complete non compliance of Section 11(1)(b) of the Act. Following the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Babu Lal v. State 1976 FAJ 81, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused. Not satisfied by this, the State has filed the present appeal after obtaining leave under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The occurrence is 12 years' old. The sample was taken as back as on July 22, 1975. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the acquittal of the appellant now after 12 years of the occurrence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that the sample taken was not a reprsentative sample and, therefore, there was a non-compliance of Section 11(1)(b) of the Act. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that it is not a fit case for setting aside the acquittal of the respondent after the lapse of a period of 12 years.

3. The result is that there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1987 Same Parties State of Rajasthan vs Moti Same Subject Food Adulteration Same Judge Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

Food Adulteration