M.D Bhatt, J.:— This is the State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused of the offence under section 7(1)/16(1)(a) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act.
2. Food Inspector Gangasaran Gupta had purchased the sample of food -grain viz Arhar ki dal from the Kirana shop known as M/s. Suganchand Ghasiwada, for purposes of analysis on 17.9.1980 The Public Analyst vide his report found the sample to be adulterated.
3. Hence, the respondent-accused was prosecuted for the offence in question.
4. The respondent accused who was acquitted by the trial court firstly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove in the light of section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as to who was Incharge and was responsible at the relevant time for the conduct of business of that firm and secondly on the ground, that there was non-compliance of mandatory provision of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules due to the forwarding of the Public Analyst's report to the appropriate authority much beyond the prescribed 45 days.
5. In the present appeal, the Panel Lawyer Shri O.P Namdeo appearing for the appellant-state has urged that there is ample material on record that the accused Ghasiram was Incharge of the Kirana Shop and was responsible for the conduct of the business and, therefore, the trial court's finding in this regard is wrong. It is also stated that the compliance of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is not mandatory and is only directory. No case law has been cited in support of this contention.
6. I have scrutinized the evidence on record. Panchanama and the receipt (Exs. P3 and P2 respectively) on record show that at the relevant time the respondent-accused Ghasiram was alone running the shop and was Incharge of the shop and it was he who had sold the sample. This fact is equally admitted by the respondent in his examination under section 313 of the Code and, therefore, the trial court's finding in this regard is wrong and it has to be held now that the sample of food grain viz Arhar ki dal was purchased from (he proper of the firm, be it a registered firm or joint family Firm and as such, the respondent is found to be properly prosecuted for the offence in question.
7. As regards the other ground of acquittal, it is noticed from the Public Analyst's report (Ex. P5) that the sample had been received by him on 20.9.19???0. The Food Inspector P.W 1 Gangasaran Gupta's oral testimony (para 3) shows that he had received the Public Analyst's report on 28.11.1980 It follows that this report was received, by him after more than 45 days and as such it was in contravention of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
8. In the light of Food Inspector v. Jaladanki Faiamma . 1984 2 P.A.C 239 A.P., and State of Maharashtra v. Deepchand . 1983 1 F.A.C 174, Bom.. it has to he held that compliance of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is mandatory. Obviously, this mandatory provision has not been followed in the instant case and therefore, the order of acquittal being justified is not open for interference.
9. In the result, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed.
10. Appeal dismissed.