RAJENDRA vs STATE OF M.P.

The Supreme Court held that under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the prosecution must prove the existence of partnership to convict all partners. The Court found that the trial Magistrate's acquittal was based on a delay in sending the Public Analyst's report, which was not fatal as 'immediately' was interpreted to mean 'reasonable despatch'. The Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellant No. 1 but acquitted appellants No. 2 and 3 due to lack of evidence against them, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the prosecution under Section 13(2) of the Act.