1968 (11) TMI 116 - HC - Indian Laws

Court overturns acquittal, upholds convictions under Food Adulteration Act. Public Analyst appointment deemed valid.

The Court set aside the acquittal orders by the Sessions Judge and upheld the convictions by the Magistrate in two criminal cases under the Prevention of ... - Issues:Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, common questions of law in two appeals, appointment of Public Analyst, interpretation of notifications regarding appointment criteria, competency of Public Analyst, grounds for acquittal by Sessions Judge, legal status of Medical Officer and Chemist, sufficiency of evidence for appointment as Public Analyst, application of Section 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.Analysis:The appeals arose from a common judgment of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge in two separate criminal cases involving the same respondent convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was acquitted based on the grounds related to the appointment and competency of the Public Analyst. The Municipal Council challenged the acquittal, arguing that the appointment of the Public Analyst was valid and the conviction by the Magistrate was justified.The main contention revolved around the interpretation of notifications appointing the Medical Officer and Chemist as Public Analyst under the Act. The learned Judge acquitted the respondent based on the discrepancy in the appointment criteria and the competency of the appointed individual. The appellant argued that the notifications clearly indicated the appointment of a Chemist as a Public Analyst, and the objections raised by the respondent lacked merit as they were not raised during the trial.The Court analyzed the relevant notifications and legal provisions to determine the intent behind the appointment criteria. The Court concluded that the appointment of the Chemist as a Public Analyst was in accordance with the notifications, and the objections raised by the respondent regarding the competency of the appointed individual were unfounded. The Court emphasized that the State Government had the authority to appoint a Public Analyst based on office and qualifications, and the respondent's failure to challenge the qualifications during the trial precluded raising the issue on appeal.In light of the detailed analysis and interpretation of the notifications and legal provisions, the Court set aside the orders of acquittal by the Sessions Judge and upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the Magistrate in both criminal cases. The Court found the judgment of the Sessions Judge erroneous and reinstated the original conviction of the accused-respondent, thereby allowing both appeals filed by the Municipal Council.