State of Rajasthan Vs. Roop Chand

criminal procedure code - appeal against acquittal and prevention of food adulteration act, 1954--sections 7/16(1)(a)--sentence--occurrence of 1973--accused remained in custody for 15 days--held, interference with order of acquittal would defeat ends of justice.;appeal dismissed - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction.sobhag mal jain, j.1. by the judgment dated august 6, 1976 the chief judicial magistrate, nagaur convicted and sentenced the respondent for the offence under section 7/16(1)(a) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the act') to six month's simple imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to 1-1/2 month's further simple imprisonment. on appeal by the accused respondent, the sessions judge, merta by the judgment dated october 31, 1977 acquitted the accused. the acquittal was passed on the ground that there was a complete non-compliance of the provisions of the proviso to section 11(1)(a) of the act. this appeal by the state arises on leave granted by this court on november 13, 1978 under section 378(3) of the code of criminal procedure.2. i have heard the public prosecutor for the state and shri r.l. jangid for the accused. i am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal in the present case for the reason that the occurrence relates to the year 1973. it is more than 14 years now. it appears that the accused remained in custody for more than 15 days and no useful purpose will be served now if the acquittal of the accused is set aside. it would defeat the ends of justice instead of advancing it.3, the result is, the appeal filed by the state under section 378(3), cr. pc is dismissed.