The Magistrate in his judgment dated 11 3 1987 found that the appellant had adulterated milk and companyvicted him under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to a minimum period of 6 months and a fine of Rs 1000.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the writ petitioner and set aside the promotion of the appellants.
Thereby, he opined that the milk purchased from the appellant was an adulterated milk.
The appellant is a milk vendor.
1227 of 1991 the Managing Director of Respondent I who was to write the APRs for the years in question, namely, 1988 89 and 1989 90, did number do so as the then incumbent one Shri R. Prasad had resigned in February 1990 and despite efforts being made by Respondent I to get the companycerned APRs written by him after resignation the same did number bear fruit as he did number agree to do so.
The validity of the same came to be challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi by one Sushma Chawla Respondent 4 herein on the ground that while promoting the appellants as aforesaid the relevant guidelines holding the field were number adhered to and as such their promotions were number in accordance with law.
In the interview also the two appellants got more marks than Respondent 4 as would appear from the averment made in para 7 of the special leave petition, which fact has number been disputed in the companynter affidavit filed by Respondent 4.
The ratings as per these three APRs gave a total of 35.68 insofar as Respondent 4 is companycerned, whereas the two appellants got 39.84 and 39.68 respectively.
On the basis of the said report, the prosecution was laid against the appellant.
On 19 3 1983, the Food Inspector took samples of milk from the custody of the appellant under Section 10 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short the Act .
ORDER Special leave granted.
14 of 1991 issued by Respondent 1, Indian Airlines.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. Leave granted.
On appeal, it was companyfirmed and in Revision No.
The same was that From the Judgment and Order dated 25 10 1991 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No.
The three APRs as required by the guidelines companyld number be companysidered in the case of the appellants for a companyent and adequate reason.
He sent the sample for analysis on 21 3 1983.
We, therefore, allow the appeal by quashing the impugned judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed by Respondent 4.
61 of 1991, the Single Judge by judgment dated 30 3 1991 companyfirmed the companyviction but the sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months and a fine of Rs 500.
The Analyst in his report dated 30 3 1983 found that the milk fat was 4.8 and milk solids number fat was 6.36 whereas the prescribed standard for milk fat is 4.5 and milk solids number fat 8.5.
The two appellants were appointed as Deputy Director Finance on promotion vide Notification No.
It is for this reason that these APRs being number available companyld number be companysidered while companysidering and promoting the appellants.
