( 1 ) THE applicant-original accused is aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 31st January 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadhwan City in Criminal Case No. 48 of 2000 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was pleased to convict the petitioner-accused for breach of Rule 32 (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ?the said Act?) and under section 7 (2) and 7 (5) under section 16 of the Act. The learned JMFC was pleased to award 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment. The learned JMFC was also pleased to pass a similar order for violation of Rule 32 (f ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order preferred criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar. The same was dismissed by judgement and order dated 3rd August 2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to confirm the judgement and order passed by the learned JMFC and was pleased cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner-accused and ordered him to be taken into custody. At that time an application was moved for suspending the sentence so as to enable the petitioner-accused to approach this Court by way of a revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to suspend the sentence till 31st August 2006. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the revision application was filed in time, i. e. prior to expiry of the period for which the sentence was suspended, but when the matter was moved for admission hearing before this Court, this Court (Coram: D. N. Patel, J.) was pleased to issue notice and call for the Record and Proceedings by order dated 30. 08. 2006. The relevant part of the order reads as under:?it is needless to say that as this Court is issuing notice to the respondents, the trial court shall not pass any order in any application. . . . . ? the learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this is a case wherein the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused is required to be quashed and set aside as the requirement of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act is not fulfilled. The learned advocate submitted that under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act, a copy of the report of the result of analysis is to be served to the person, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory . The learned advocate emphatically submitted that this particular provision of law is not complied with and that being so, in light of the decisions of this Court and of the Hon ble the Apex Court the conviction is vitiated and the same is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. The learned advocate submitted that this very plea was raised before the learned JMFC, but then the same is rejected. The learned advocate invited attention of this Court to the contents of paras 13 and 14. He submitted that the learned JMFC has misread the provisions of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act. He submitted that the distinction drawn by the learned JMFC in two types of cases, namely, (i) in which sample is found to be adulterated and (ii) samples which are found to be misbranded, is uncalled for and unsustainable.

( 3 ) THE submission of the learned advocate is not acceptable because term adulterated is defined in clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act, whereas what is misbranded is defined in clause (ix) of section 2 of the Act. There are numerous ways in which an article can be misbranded . In the present case as is mentioned, the article is found to be not complying with Rul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document