Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1183 (ALL)

MANGTOO RAM v. NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI KANPUR

2002-09-05

ONKARESHWAR BHATT

body2002
ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-1-1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in Criminal Case No. 2457 of 1983. By the impugned order the application of the revisionist for discharging him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called the Act, has been rejected. 2. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. C. Shukla for the opposite party have been heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are that sample of mustered oil was taken from the revisionist. The Public Analyst found it adulterated because in his opinion argemone oil was mixed. The revisionist applied to get one sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, who also found the mustered oil to be adulterated under Section 2 (i a) (m) of the Act. The Court below framed the charges on 9-5-1983. In the charge mention of the Public Analyst report as well as of the Central Food Laboratory has been mentioned. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the case of S. T. Swami v. Amrit Lal M. Jani and another, 1979 (1) F. A. C. 276. This case law does not support the revisionist because it has been held in this case that once a charge is framed, there could not be a discharge and the only order which could be passed would be one of acquittal. 5. According to Section 13 (3) of the Act the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 2-B shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub- section (1 ). The report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory also mentions that the sample of mustered oil was adulterated. It is contended that the Public Analyst found the sample adulterated due to the sample being mixed with argemone oil whereas the report of the Central Food Laboratory found the same adulterated on other count. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Chetumal v. State of M. P. , 1981 AWC (SC) 400. This case also does not help the revisionist because the report of the Public Analyst showed deficiency in the sample of ground nut oil in one aspect while the Central Food Laboratory found it deficient in another respect. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Chetumal v. State of M. P. , 1981 AWC (SC) 400. This case also does not help the revisionist because the report of the Public Analyst showed deficiency in the sample of ground nut oil in one aspect while the Central Food Laboratory found it deficient in another respect. In the case of Chetumal the report of Director of Central Food Laboratory was excluded from consideration because of the tempering of the seals. The case of Chehtumal further lays down that the report of Public Analyst stands superseded by the report of Director Central Food Laboratory. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion the revision has got no force and is dismissed. The stay order dated 23-1-1985 stands vacated. Revision dismissed. .