AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 172 wordsG.P. Mittal, J.—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 u/s 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. In Prem Ballab and Another Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), , the Supreme Court held that addition of any colouring matter where its use is prohibited would amount to adulteration. In this view of the matter, the Leave Petition has to be granted. Therefore, leave is granted.
The Appeal filed along with this Petition is taken on record and the same is directed to be registered. The Leave Petition stands disposed of.