Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1205 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Mulakh Raj

2003-08-27

V.M.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, dated 15.4.1993, whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 13.9.1991, Food Inspector along with Dr. R.K. Jindal, had inspected the premises of accused respondent Mulakh Raj at about 1.40 p.m., at Mohali and found accused Mulakh Raj, having in his possession about 5 kilograms of khoya, for sale and after disclosing his identity, Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of khoya for Rs. 30/- against proper receipt. Before purchasing, the contents were made homogeneous and thereafter the sample was divided into three equal parts, after adding preservative therein and each sample was duly sealed in accordance with law. Thereafter, one part of the sealed along with memo in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, for analysis, while the two other parts of the sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, that the sample of khoya, was adulterated, complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, against the accused respondent. After the filing of the complaint, notice under Section 13 of the Act was given to the accused. Thereafter the accused was charged, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution led its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the sale of khoya in question and the shop from where the sample was taken and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, State of Punjab has filed the present appeal in this Court. 3. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, State of Punjab has filed the present appeal in this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted before me that the learned Magistrate had erred in law in acquitting the accused on the ground that the accused respondent Mulakh Raj had no concern with the shop in question. It was submitted that even if no independent witness was associated, as required under Section 10(7) of the Act, still accused could not be acquitted of the charge framed against him. It was further submitted that the report of the Public Analyst was duly sent to accused respondent, as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, and as such accused respondent could not be acquitted on that ground. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the accused respondent was rightly acquitted by the learned Magistrate and no case for interference by this Court in the present appeal against acquittal is made out. Under Section 13(2) of the Act, it is provided that on receipt of the report about the result of the analysis, the local health Authority shall, after the institution of the prosecution against the accused, forward a copy of the report and the result of the analysis to him informing him that if so desired, an application to the Court may be moved within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample re-analysed from Central Food Laboratory. In the present case, report of the Public Analyst was sent to accused respondent Mulakh Raj, vide letter dated 15.11.1991 by registered post. The registered envelope was received back with the report of the postal authorities that no person of this name was available at the given address. The envelope is Ex. PO, whereas the forwarding letter is Ex. PM and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst is Ex. PN. The registered envelope was received back with the report of the postal authorities that no person of this name was available at the given address. The envelope is Ex. PO, whereas the forwarding letter is Ex. PM and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst is Ex. PN. Thus, the report alongwith forwarding letter was received back unserved with the report that the accused was not available at the given address. Thereafter, another covering letter Ex. PM, was sent to the accused respondent, by hand, alongwith a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. As per the report of the Peon, available on the document Ex. PL, the accused had refused to accept the same. However, no evidence was produced to prove the report Ex. PL, regarding refusal. Neither the Peon, who had gone with the forwarding letter and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was examined, nor any other evidence was produced to show that anyone had gone to accused respondent alongwith the forwarding letter and the report of the Public Analyst and/or the accused respondent had refused to accept the same. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the writing Ex. PL, that the accused had refused to accept the same. The authority Har Charan Singh v. Shiv Rani and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1284, relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, there was presumption regarding the letter sent by post. However, in my opinion, this presumption could not be raised in respect of a letter which was sent through a peopn, who had not even been examined to prove that he had in fact gone to the accused respondent and he had refused to accept the same. 6. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, there is non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and on that account, in my opinion, it would be clear that the accused respondent had been rightly acquitted of the charge framed against him and no fault could be found with the same. 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.