Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 637 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State of Punjab

2003-05-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - The petitioner herein was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 19.2.1997 under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment dated 1.6.2001 set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court with the direction to record the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code afresh by putting contents of report of public analyst/Director Central Food Laboratory. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition praying for acquittal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector on 19.8.1993 accompanied by his other staff members, visited the karyana shop of the petitioner and found him in possession of 20 kgs. of Moongi Di dal meant for sale and human consumption. This sample was taken by the Food Inspector according to Rules and thereafter it was sent to the public analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PG, the contents of the sample were found to be adulterated as it contained tartrazine, and added yellow coalter colour matter, the use of which was not permitted in such type of food under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulterated Rules, 1954. On these allegations, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner earned the conviction by the trial Court. 3. The appellate Court while meeting with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner also observed that the contents of the reports Ex.PG and PJ have not been specifically put to the petitioner and as such remanded back the case for recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code 4. I have heard Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 5. Mr. I have heard Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 5. Mr. Gupta at the very outset has submitted that the learned Appellate Court instead of remanding the case back to the trial Court should have acquitted the petitioner on the ground of non-putting to the petitioner in a statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the contents of report of Ex.PG and PJ. He then contended that this lapse on behalf of the prosecution has caused prejudice to the petitioner and as such whole of the trial on this ground alone stands vitiated. In support of these arguments Mr. Gupta has relied upon a latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Yusuf @ Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003(3) S.C. 585 and Subash Chander v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 421 (P&H). 6. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has contended that there is no illegality in remanding the case back to the trial Court for recording his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, I find that there is force in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This sample from the shop of the petitioner was taken on 19.8.1993. He was convicted by the learned trial Court on 19.2.1997. The case was remanded back to the trial Court in the year 2001. The petitioner by that time had suffered the rigour of protected trial of 8 years. I do not find any justification in remanding the case back to the trial Court after a lapse of long 8 years. 8. Even otherwise it is the settled law that the attention of the accused must be specifically invited to the inculpatory pieces of circumstances of evidence laid down on record with a view to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation. Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code imposes a heavy duty on the Court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused. Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code imposes a heavy duty on the Court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused. In the present case what is to be considered is as to whether the contents of the report Ex.PG and PJ being not specifically put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has caused any prejudice or not ? The prosecution sought the conviction of the petitioner on the point of adulterated food stuff only and in my view the non-putting of the above said reports have certainly prejudiced the defence of the petitioner. This matter goes deep to the roof of the case and vitiates the trial. 9. The next question now arises is as to whether the case should be remanded back to the trial Court as held by the lower Appellate Court or the proceedings should be dropped at this stage ? I have considered all the materials on the record. As stated above the matter relates to year 1993. I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice there should an end to the proceeding. The judgment of Yusuf @ Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner. My view is otherwise strengthened by another judgment of this Court render in Ram Nath v. The State of Haryana, 2002(2) C.L.R. 303. In the said case the appellant was convicted in a food adulteration matter and incriminating evidence was not put to him under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The Appellate Court had remanded the case back to the trial Court. As the petitioner in the said case had suffered the agony of long protected trial, the order for fresh trial was set aside by this Court, and the petitioner was consequently acquitted. For the sake of repetition, I may say that in the present case also the petitioner is already facing the agony of protracted trial for the last many years and as such he deserves acquittal. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revision petition is allowed, the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 1.6.2001 is set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. Revision allowed.