M.C. Vs. Ramjas - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/765283
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnFeb-03-1986
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1976
Judge Guman Mal Lodha, J.
Reported in1987(2)WLN638
AppellantM.C.
RespondentRamjas
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredR.G. Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955 - rule 22 is directory and not mandatory relied on air 1978 sc 933.;appeal dismissed - guman mal lodha, j.1. no one appeared for the municipal council. i have heard mr. tibrewal for the accused and perused the record.2. mr. tibrewal very fairly concedes that interpretation of rule of 22 of the prevention of food adulteration rule, 1955 has undergone change by judgment of supreme court in state of kerala v. alassary mohd. : 1978crilj925 .3. in this very judgment the supreme court after holding that rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, refused to interfere with the judgment of acquittal based on earlier judgment in pamneni' s case, r.g. panjwani v. state of maharashtra : 1975crilj254 .4. on the same analogy, the order of acquittal in this case can not be interfered with now. the appeal is dismissed as such.
Judgment:

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. No one appeared for the Municipal Council. I have heard Mr. Tibrewal for the accused and perused the record.

2. Mr. Tibrewal very fairly concedes that interpretation of rule of 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 has undergone change by judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alassary Mohd. : 1978CriLJ925 .

3. In this very judgment the Supreme Court after holding that Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, refused to interfere with the judgment of acquittal based on earlier judgment in Pamneni' s case, R.G. Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 .

4. On the same analogy, the order of acquittal in this case can not be interfered with now. The appeal is dismissed as such.