Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1922 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Salag Ram

2005-07-27

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal by the State has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 26.04.1988 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.329/1979, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sec.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 29.1979 at about 11:30 a.m., PW. 1 Amritlal Solanki, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of accused-respondents where accused Salagram was sitting. The shop was of general merchant food articles. He purchased 375 gms of Til oil from a tin containing 12 kgs of Til oil after giving information under Form No.6 (Exhibit P/6) and after paying the cost thereof , receipt was obtained. The sample taken was divided into three equal parts and put in three bottles which were sealed at the spot. One of the bottles of sample so taken was sent for chemical examination to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for examination. On analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. 3. After conducting usual investigation, a complaint was filed in the learned trial Court, who framed charge under Section 7/16 of the Act against the accused-respondents. 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. No evidence was led in defence. 4. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondents in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the prosecution version and claimed trial. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, by its Judgment and order dated 26.04.1988 acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 7. In the present case three witnesses have been examined. PW. 1 Amritlal Solanki, is the Food Inspector and the other two are Motbirs Rameshwar & Om Prakash. PW. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 7. In the present case three witnesses have been examined. PW. 1 Amritlal Solanki, is the Food Inspector and the other two are Motbirs Rameshwar & Om Prakash. PW. 3 Amritlal has stated that on 24.09.1979 he in the capacity of Food Inspector checked the shop of Salag Ram which was in the name and style as Salagram Goverdhan where Salag Ram was sitting and he after showing his identity purchased 375 grms of Til Oil from a tin containing about 12 kg oil. He after completing formalities, sent the sample for chemical examination to the Central Food Laboratory and it was found to be adulterated therefore after obtaining sanction, the complaint was filed. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seized the licence of the shop. He has further admitted this fact that he does not know as to whether the shop was a proprietory concern, a partnership firm, or a company. It has also come in his evidence that the sample sent for examination on an application of the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act was not sent within 30 days or it was not examined in the time prescribed i.e. 30 days and was delayed by 3 months 14 days. The other two witnesses have infact not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. In view of above evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted accused Dhanraj for the reason that he had no concern whatsoever in relation to the business and Salag Ram was acquitted for the reason that compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act was not done and since after sending the sample, the sample kept for further examination purposes was subsequently sent, therefore, the previous report in relation to the sample was not liable to be read in evidence and that the subsequent sample received was examined after 3 months 14 days whereas it ought to have been examined within 30 days. 9. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not appear to be illegal. The findings are based on cogent reasons. 9. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not appear to be illegal. The findings are based on cogent reasons. No inquiry whatsoever was made in relation to the business of respondents inasmuch as it is not known as to whether the business was in the form of a proprietory concern, partnership firm or a company or who was the owner of that concern, partners of that firm or the shareholders of the company. 8. The finding of the trial Court in relation to accused Dhanraj was that he was neither at the shop nor was doing any business there. 9. In view of above, the learned trial Court acquitted both the accused. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that as the sample was found to be adulterated, the accused were liable to be convicted. I do not find any merit in this contention particularly in view of the fact that during the pendency of the State Appeal main accused Salag Ram has died and a death certificate to that effect by the Sarpanch, Mathania has been filed. The State appeal, in these circumstances, against main accused Salag Ram does not survive and abates. As far as accused Dhanraj is concerned, as discussed above, the trial Court has observed that nothing has been placed on record to show his involvement in the business and he has been acquitted. 11. In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any force in this State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal against Salag Ram stands abated on account of his death during the pendency of the State appeal and the appeal of State against Dhanraj having no force stands dismissed.