P.C. many other accused had also been acquitted a number of other appeals had also been filed by the appellants.
The Respondent exercised his right under Section 13 2 of the Act.
The sample purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into bottles which were sealed.
Accordingly a sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis.
The Sessions Judge by his Judgment dated 13th February, 1995 acquitted the Respondent only on the ground that the trial Court, while recording the statement of the Accused Respondent under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, did number read out the companytents of the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory to the accused.
On 4th May, 1989 after obtaining sanction from the companypetent authority, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereinafter called the Act , a companyplaint was filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
The Respondent filed an Appeal before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
A report was given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.
He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who, by his report dated 6th August, 1988 found the same to be number companyfirming to the prescribed standards.
of 2001 arising out of SLP Crl.
As on identical grounds i.e. that the companytents of the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory had number been put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.
5,000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
He found the sample to companytain moisture as 20.01 and as insoluble in H.C.L. as 1.92 as against the maximum standard of 12 and 1.3 respectively.
In this Judgment the facts in Criminal Appeal No.
All these appeals are against the said companymon Judgment.
As against this acquittal the appellants filed an appeal to the High Court of Delhi.
He also found adulterating material, starches and companyouring material in the sample.
The Respondent was after a trial companyvicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his Judgment dated 23rd /26th February, 1991.
All those appeals came to be dismissed by the High Court by the impugned Order dated 20th November, 2000.
It must be mentioned that against the Judgment dated 20th November, 2000 other SLPs had also been filed before this Court.
P.C. Hence these appeals.
1617 of 2001 are being set out.
By this Judgment a number of appeals, filed by the appellants herein, have been dismissed.
On 29th August, 1988 the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Lal Mirch Kutti from M s Vashno Panjabu Dhaba, H 1, Chander Nagar, Delhi.
N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The facts of the other Appeals need number be set out as they are more or less similar.
Heard parties.
The Respondent was the person who had sold Lal Mirch to the Food Inspector.
Those were dismissed leaving the questions of law open.
These appeals are against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20th November, 2000.
