Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1472 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sita Ram

2005-05-17

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-This State appeal has been filed under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment and order dated 04.06.1988 passed by Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No. 1854/83 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The leave to appeal in this matter was granted on 310.1988. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 09.06.1983, PW. 1 Sardar Singh, Food Inspector, reached to the ice factory of accused Sita Ram and in presence of witnesses Nathuram and Gopal Tailor, purchased sample of ice-candy weighing 900 grams informing the accused Sita Ram. The sample was divided into three equal parts and put in three bottles, sealed them at the spot. One of the bottles of sample so taken was sent for chemical examination to the Public Health Laboratory, Udaipur for examination. On analysis, the sample was not found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. Thereafter, after taking permission from the Chief Medical Health Officer, Chittorgarh, prosecution was launched against the accused respondent. 4. After conducting usual investigation, a challan was filed in the learned trial Court, who framed charge under Section 7/16 of the Act against the accused-respondent. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses and tendered some documents in evidence to support its case. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondent in his statements under Section 313, CrPC, denied the prosecution version and stated that the sample was not taken in his presence and he was only an employee working at the factory. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, by its Judgment and order dated 04.06.1988 acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 7. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 8. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 7. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 8. It is to be seen that in the present case the sample of ice-candy sent for examination was found to be adulterated and the accused when appeared in the Court, moved an application for sending another sample for testing to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. It is on his request that the sample was sent and analysis report thereof was received which has been marked as Exh. P/7. Thus, in the present case, the first report is Exh. P/5 i.e. of the Public Analyst and the other report received is of Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, Exh. P/7. After receipt of the subsequent report, the previous report gets superseded and it is the latter report which is considered to be final while examining the cases of food adulteration. 9. In the report received from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, Ex.P/7, it has been mentioned that at the time of testing of sample, the sample was found in light brown colour free from any visible extraneous matter and free from fruits and nuts. It showed fermentation and off odour. A perusal of this report Exh. P/7 indicates that the sample was not in a fit condition and because the fermentation process had started it was giving bad smell. Therefore, result of the analysis of such a sample which was not in a fit condition and showed fermentation giving bad smell, cannot be made the basis to hold someone guilty for an offence allegedly committed under the Act. 10. It is further to be seen that the sanctioning authority while issuing sanction under Sec.20 has not applied its mind because from Exh. P/6, the proforma of sanction, it is apparent that only the blank places have been filled up. This demonstrates total non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. 10. It is further to be seen that the sanctioning authority while issuing sanction under Sec.20 has not applied its mind because from Exh. P/6, the proforma of sanction, it is apparent that only the blank places have been filled up. This demonstrates total non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The Sanctioning authority is required to examine the matter thoroughly and there must be satisfaction of the authority after perusal of the material and it should be clearly revealed under what provisions of law the offence is alleged to have been committed and there must be further satisfaction of the sanctioning authority that it was in the public interest to accord sanction. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case while keeping in mind that the acquittal was recorded by the learned trial Court after trial on 04.06.1988 for cogent reasons in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed in the year 1983, I do not find any force in the present State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.