Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 982 (MP)

Brijesh Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2007-09-11

B.M.GUPTA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is for impugning the judgment dated 3. 4. 2000 passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri in criminal appeal no. 155/98 by which the learned judge has affirmed a judgment of conviction dated 14/7/98 passed by JMFC, Shivpuri in criminal case no. 2349/94 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 16 (1-A) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) imposing six months rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. ( 2. ) SHRI Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although he has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds, however, presently he is pressing the revision only on the ground that compliance of section 13 (2) of the Act has not been proved on behalf of the prosecution causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, he deserves acquittal. ( 3. ) PER contra, Shri Bhardwaj for the State has submitted that as per exp. P/15 to P/17, the complaint has been made. ( 4. ) ON perusal of the record it appears that, as per para 9 of the statement of Food Inspector, S. L. Bhatnagar (PW-1) a notice Exp- P/15 under Section 13 (2) of the Act was sent by Deputy Director by registered post. The postal receipt of which is Exp- P/16 and P/17. On perusal of Exp- P/15 it appears that, the notice was given by Deputy Director, Local Health authority. Postal receipt Exp- P/17 indicates that some post and mail was sent to the petitioner. Vide this postal receipt this notice was sent, this fact has not been proved by the concerned official of Local Health Authority. On this point the statement of Food Inspector being hear-say cannot be relied on, as also observed in a judgment Satish Vs. State of M. P. , 2007 (2)FAC 78 : 2007 1 MPHT, 120. On perusal of accused statement at question no. 16, this fact has been specifically denied by the petitioner. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove this fact, as observed by the Apex Court in rameshwardayal Vs. State of U. P. 1996 (II) FAC 197 (MP ). In absence of such proof, a prejudice is caused to the petitioner. On perusal of accused statement at question no. 16, this fact has been specifically denied by the petitioner. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove this fact, as observed by the Apex Court in rameshwardayal Vs. State of U. P. 1996 (II) FAC 197 (MP ). In absence of such proof, a prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Perhaps on the same ground, he could not apply under Section 13 (2) of the Act for further analysis of the sample by the Director Central Food Laboratory. ( 5. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted from the aforementioned charge.