JUDGMENT
S.C. Pratap, J.
1. This acquittal appeal arising out of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act (hereafter ‘the Act’), can be disposed of on the short ground of want of service of notice on the accused as a mandatory requirement under section 13(2) of the Act. It is needless to relate the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution case as the same have been succinctly set out in his judgement by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
2. On section 13(2) of the Act, it has been found that notice the under was not served on the accused. The accused has been consistently signing Even when the impugned sample was taken, he put his signature on the relevant document. He has signed several documents. The alleged acknowledgement of notice under section 13(2) of the Act is the solitary document which purports to bear the thumb impression of the accused. The accused has denied having received any such notice. He has also denied having put his thumb impression on the purported acknowledgement. We have seen the original acknowledgement and we have our own doubts whether it is that of the accused. Indeed, there is no means of knowing whether the thumb impression thereon is that of the accused. When the accused denied his thumb impression on the acknowledgement receipt, it was still open to the prosecution to establish that fact. For reasons best known, however, it has failed to do so. The net result is that what existed in the mind of the learned trial Judge trial Magistrate and continues to exist in our mind is whether the purported acknowledgement receipt (Exhibit 25) bears or does not bear the thumb impression of the accused. This doubt to some extent is enhanced when we find that the accused knows how to sign and, in fact, he has signed all other documents save and except Exhibit 25. It is in these circumstances that the learned trial Judge trial Magistrate has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. Interference with the said acquittal, in the face of these circumstances, would not be justified.
3. There is also other contentions raised. It is, however, not necessary to consider the same as the acquittal is being confirmed on the aforesaid ground.
4. There is no dispute that non-compliance of a mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution case. There is also no dispute that section 13(2) of the Act is, on its plain terms, a mandatory provision. The prosecution having failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt compliance with the said mandatory provision, the impugned order of acquittal deserves to be maintained and upheld.
5. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.