Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2251 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Pandit

2007-11-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondents of the offences charged with.A complaint of Ex.R 14 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging therein that on 14.6.86 at 3.00 PM, Prakash Chandra Sidh, Food Inspector inspected the shop of accused respondent. On suspecting the 'Suji' to be adulterated, the Food Inspector took sample and completed all necessary formalities. Out of three bottles containing sample, one of the bottles was sent to the Public Health Laboratory. The Public Analyst submitted report Ex.R 12, which shows that 'Suji' was adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, a complaint came to be filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate charge sheeted the accused respondent for offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and recorded the plea. On denial of allegations, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. The Food Inspector examined himself as PW1 and one more witness, namely Tara Chand as PW2. Thereafter, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.RC.At the conclusion of trial and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the sanction for prosecuting the respondent was not according to law and the reason for this conclusion was that the sanction did not disclose that the concerned authority had applied its mind before according sanction for prosecution. Being dissatisfied with the judgment acquittal, the present appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.S. Sunda, learned counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the impugned judgment. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sanction Ex.13 accorded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer does not suffer from any infirmity and the finding of the learned trial court in this regard is wholly erroneous. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sunda, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent strenuously submitted that sanction for prosecution should not be a mere formality but should disclose that the sanctioning authority has looked into the matter and has applied its mind before issuing the sanction. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sunda, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent strenuously submitted that sanction for prosecution should not be a mere formality but should disclose that the sanctioning authority has looked into the matter and has applied its mind before issuing the sanction. Learned counsel submitted that Section 20 of the Act requires that the competent authority may apply its mind and find out whether it is a fit case for prosecuting a person or not. According to him, Section 20 of the Act is mandatory in nature and it imposes a bar for prosecution for an offence under the Act not being an offence under section 14 or 14(a). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute about the authority who has accorded sanction for prosecution. In the instant case the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jhunjhunu has accorded sanction for prosecution the accused respondent. The only question is whether from a perusal of the sanction Ex.P13, it can be inferred that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind before according sanction for prosecution of the accused respondent. A glance at the sanction Ex.P13 reflects that it is a cyclo styled copy, in which blanks have been filled up by hand. Mere filling up of blanks do not suggest that the concerned authority had looked into the material relating to the case and it was after application of mind that the sanction was accorded. The object of enactment of Section 20 of the Act is to make sure that before prosecuting a person for an offence under the Act the sanctioning authority has to satisfy that the case was fit for prosecution. In State of Rajasthan v. Munir Deen and others ( 1987(1) F.A.C. 277 ) this Court while dealing with the object of enactment of Section 20 has observed as under: " The object of enactment of Section 20 is to put the offences under this Act into a special category requiring sanction before prosecuting a person involved. It is to make sure that before prosecuting a person for an offence under the Act a higher authority has to satisfy that the case was fit for prosecution. Such an important provision of the Act meant for the safeguard of the interest of the person alleged against should not be lightly taken by the authority empowered to accord sanction." 6. Such an important provision of the Act meant for the safeguard of the interest of the person alleged against should not be lightly taken by the authority empowered to accord sanction." 6. The Bombay High Court in Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra (1987(1) FAC 95) , after relying upon the various pronouncements of the Apex Court, has observed as under: "Therefore, according to the latest law laid down by the Supreme Court whit is required of a sanctioning authority is not only to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case to be satisfied that prima facie case existed but also to record reasons why launching of prosecution against an offender is necessary in the public interest. So far as our case is concerned, neither the reasons are recorded for granting the sanction or it is pointed out that launching of the prosecution was in the public interest. 7. In the case at hand, a perusal of sanction, Ex.R 13 makes it abundantly clear that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind while granting sanction to prosecute the accused respondent and, therefore, the sanction cannot be said to be in accordance with law. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court what is required of a sanctioning authority is not only to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case to be satisfied that prima facie case existed but also to record reasons as to why launching of prosecution against an offender is necessary in the public interest. In the instant case, the sanction for prosecution neither discloses that there existed prima facie case nor any reasons have been recorded that launching of such prosecution would be in the public interest. Thus, I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate that the sanction for prosecuting the accused respondent cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Hence the prosecution launched against the accused on invalid sanction in violation of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act is bad in law. The judgment of the trial court being based on sound reasonings calls for no interference. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the State has no merit and is dismissed. Hence the prosecution launched against the accused on invalid sanction in violation of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act is bad in law. The judgment of the trial court being based on sound reasonings calls for no interference. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the State has no merit and is dismissed. The accused respondent is already on bail and he need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled.State appeal dismissed. *******