* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 24th January, 2013
Pronounced on: 31st January, 2013
+ CRL.L.P.265 /2012
DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH
DESIGNATED OFFICER ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP
Versus
MANOHAR LAL ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Asha Tiwari, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Petitioner seeks leave to Appeal against a judgment dated 11.11.2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge("ASJ") acquitted the Respondent of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(PFA Act) primarily on the ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate("MM") did not examine the aspect that „Tartrazine‟ was one of the permitted synthetic colours to be used specifically under Rule 29 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules) and that there was a delay of six days in signing the report by the Public Analyst which was fatal.
2. In Prem Ballab and Anr. v. State(Delhi Admn.), 1976 (II) FAC 53, the Supreme Court held that addition of any colouring matter where its use is Crl.L.P.265/2012 Page 1 of 2 prohibited would amount to adulteration. In this view of the matter, the Leave Petition has to be granted. Therefore, leave is granted.
3. The Appeal filed along with this Petition is taken on record and the same is directed to be registered.
4. The Leave Petition stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 31, 2013 pst Crl.L.P.265/2012 Page 2 of 2