JUDGMENT
S M Jain, J.
1. By the Judgment dt. June 21, 1979, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (here in after referred to as the ‘Act’) This appeal is directed against the said judgment.
2. The case is as old as October 2, 1977. It was on this date that Shri Hira Lal, Food Inspector, Udaipur, went to the shop of the accused. Known as `Adarsh Mashala Bhandar, situated in Udaipur, and took sample of ‘Haldi, (Turmar c) powder. On chemical analysis, the Public Analyst found it to be adulterated.
His findings were:
Moisture content 5.68 Total Ash 10.52% Ash insoluble in dil HCL 0.88% Total Stach 39.42% Lead Chromate Nil Added colouring matter Nil
3. He opined that this sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act.
4. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the variation in the ash-content was not on account of natural causes.
5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri T.S. Champawat & Shri Ravi Bhansali. counsel for the accused. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal.
6. The case is more than 12 years old. The learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that there was non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act in as much as the Local (Health) Authority failed to send to the accused the copy of the report of the Public Analyst as required by the terms of this subsection. After going through the record of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the accused. There is nothing on the record to show that the Local (Health) Authority complied with the requirement provided by sec, 13(2) of the Act. This has resulted in material prejudice to the accused in as much as he was deprived of the benefit of getting his own sample examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find it a fit case for interference in the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
8. The appeal is hereby dismissed.