for analysis to the Public Analyst, and that this having number been done, there was breach of the relevant rule and, therefore, also the respondents were entitled to be discharged.
etc wherein this Court held that rule 22 is directory and so long as the quantity was sufficient for analysis by the Public Analyst, the prosecution cannot fail on the sole ground that the minimum quantity prescribed by the rule was number sent for analysis by the Public Analyst.
In reaching this companyclusion he relied upon the decision in Rajaldas Guru Namal Pamnani v. The State of Maharashtra .
v. Alaserry Mohammed etc.
The petitioner Corporation preferred a revision petition to the High Court of Delhi.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
It was also observed that chilli powder is a companydiment and number spice and, therefare, it was incumbent upon the Food Inspector to have sent sample weighing 200 gms.
However, the High Court was of the opinion that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation in view of the fact that even though the petition was actually filed on November 29, 1977, by one Shri B.T. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, the requisite power of attorney was number filed and the same was returned for removing the objection and after removing the objection it was re submitted on March 1, 1978, but in the meantime the limitation expired on February 1, 1978, The High Court further was of the opinion that as numberapplication for companydonation of delay was filed, the petition was liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation.
These samples nine in all involved in the present petition, on analysis by the Public Analyst were found to be adulterated, the adulteration companysisting of use of artificial companyltar dye, presence of foreign extraneous matter to the extent of 90, ash in percentage higher then the permissible limit, etc.
A. Desai, J. Dr. A G. Ajwani, Deputy Health Officer of the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi accompanied by an Inspector of C.B.I. and some Food Inspectors employed by the petitioner, visited the premises of the respondents where they being manufactures of various articles of food stored the same for sale, and took number of samples of various spices like the red chillies kutti, haldi powder rise kinky add red chillies whole as well as some others.
When the matter was being heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, he discharged all the respondents observing that there was a breach of mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules in as much as the minimum quantity necessary for analysis as prescribed in the relevant rule was number taken by way of sample by the Food Inspector.
Initially the companyplaint was filed against respondent 1 but subsequently on companylecting further evidence prosecution was launched against respondents 1 to 7.
