1974 (12) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orporation launched a prosecution against Kishan Lal under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("the Act"). Kishan Lal pleaded that he was not guilty and claimed to be tried. (3) The trial magistrate by order dated July 28, 1970 acquitted the accused. The Corporation has appealed to this Court against the order of acquittal. (4) Before the trial magistrate the substantial defense of the accused was that he had purchased 4 dozen sealed bottles of sauce from M/s. Vijay Fruit Industries on December 2, 1969 against cash memo. Exhibit D.W. 1 /A. and that out of these bottles he sold 3 bottles in original packing to the Inspector and in the same condition in which he had purchased these. (5) In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7) The trial magistrate came to the conclusion that it was a valid defense and that the accused had not committed any offence since he had purchased sauce from a duly licensed manufacturer. (8) As regards the evidence of Raj Kumar the learned magistrate was of the opinion that the counterpart sample was one of the bottles sold by Vijay Fruit Industries, and that Raj Kumar was not telling tile truth when he denied that the bottle shown to him was their product. (9) Mr. K. K. Raizada on behalf of the Corporation has mainly raised two arguments. Firstly, he says that the trial magistrate ought to have imp leaded Vijay Fruit Industries under Section 20A of the Act when in the course of the trial it had come to his notice that the accused ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for a fresh trial after impleading Vijay Fruit Industries, as was sought to be urged by the counsel for the Corporation. In fact we were told by the counsel for the Corporation that they have launched a separate prosecution against Vijay Fruit Industries. In these circumstances there is no sense now in remanding the case for a fresh trial. (11) It is true that under Section 14A of the Act the accused was, if so required, bound to disclose to the Food Inspector the name. address a.nd other particulars of the person from whom he had purchased the bottles of sauce. The Food Inspector has the opportunity to note the name of the manufacturer but there is no obligation on the Food Inspector to file a joint complaint against them. He can prose....