Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 691 (MP)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of M. P.

2003-05-08

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 8.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in criminal appeal No. 79/96 upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in criminal case No. 93/90. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition. Suffice it to say that on 26.12.1989 the Food Inspector Ramkripal Singh (PW 1) came to the shop of the applicant and purchased 600 gms. of jaggery (gurh). Thereafter, he added 48 drops of formalin and divided the sample in three equal parts and sealed each content in separate ploythene bags. The Food Inspector after performing the necessary formalities, as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst vide its report (Ex. P-13) found the sample to be adulterated and as such the applicant was prosecuted. The trial Court framed charges under section 7(1)/16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). Needless to say, the applicant abjured the guilt. In order to prove the charges, the Food Inspector examined himself and also examined one chain Singh (PW 2) and Mukundilal (PW 3), who were the panch witnesses and brought Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-17, the documents on record. The learned trial judge after X-raying the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the applicant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine Rs. 1,000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment of 45 days. An appeal was preferred by the applicant challenging his conviction, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition. In this revision petition, Shri S.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the conviction of the applicant is bad in law for the simple reason that the sample was not collected as required under the Rule 14 and 16 of the Rules. On the other hand, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this revision deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this revision deserves to be allowed. On bare perusal of the Panchnama (Ex. P-8), it would reveal that the sample of jaggery (gurh) which was collected was not obtained in the clean, dry polythene bags. There is nothing in the Panchnama so as to indicate that the sample was collected in the polythene bags which were clean and dry. Thus, there is clear cut violation of rule 14 of the Rules. There is another facet of the case. As per Rule 16(b), it was incumbent upon the Food Inspector to have wrapped the contents in a fairly strong thick paper, the ends of which should have been neatly folded. From this angle, the Panchnama (Ex P-8) is perused and I find that there is nothing in the Panchnama so as to indicate that the sample which was collected was wrapped in a fairly strong thick paper, the ends of which were neatly folded. Hence, there is non-compliance of Rule 16(b) of the Rules. It is well settled in law that the Rules 14 and 16 are mandatory and if there is any violation of the said Rules, the benefit would go to the accused. As discussed hereinabove, there is clear violation of Rule 14 and 16 of the Rules in collecting and sending the sample and as such the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the applicant is set aside. The applicant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the applicant.