State of Rajasthan Vs. Moti - Court Judgment

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.