Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1017 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jethanand

2008-04-11

MAHENDRA BHUSHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has come up for hearing after the expiry of period of more than 25 years from the date of occurrence 28.2.1983. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.1.1993 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial court) in Criminal Case No. 233/1984, by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are as under: On 28.2.1983 at around 9.00 a.m. Food Inspector Parmanand Monga (PW1) visited the trolley of accused Jethanand who does his business at Railway Station, Ajmer. The accused was found to be selling Namkin and Sweets. The accused was asked to give Sohan Halwa for examination and 1.50 kgs. Sohan Halwa was taken for 18 and the amount was paid to the accused. Sohan Halwa was purchased before the witness Shri Pratap Singh (PW2) and the same was packed in three different parts and they were sealed and one of the packet was sent to the local authority for examination. The public analyst in his report has given out that Sohan Halwa was prepared by Vanaspati Ghee which was adulterated. 4. A case was registered under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the proceedings commended before the Chief Judicial Magistrate but subsequently the same was committed to the trial Court. 5. The charges was read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 2 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused respondents under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.1.1993 acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 12.1.1993, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 12.1.1993, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondents and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 12.1.1993 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. He has also contended that the learned trial Court has erred into appreciating the report of the Public Analyst, which categorically stated that, the Vanaspati Ghee, which was used as a medium for preparation of Sohan Halwa, was adulterated. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. 13. He has further stated that the Food Inspector had not given his introduction to the accused respondents and not given any notice to them to purchase Sohan Halwa. He has further stated that the accused respondents did not know the English language and they did not understand the inquiry made by the Food Inspector. He has further contended that there is no eyewitness of the prosecution that the time of purchasing of Sohan Halwa and the sample was not sealed in accordance with the law. He has further contended that as per Index "B" of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, there is no standard measurement of Sohan Halwa and that is why the accused respondents cannot be convicted. He has drawn the attention of this Court upon the judgment of Shri Kishan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Misc. He has further contended that as per Index "B" of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, there is no standard measurement of Sohan Halwa and that is why the accused respondents cannot be convicted. He has drawn the attention of this Court upon the judgment of Shri Kishan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Misc. Appeal No 680/1990 decided on 8.7.1992 , which runs as under: "Unless the standard is prescribed of a particular food article in Appendix "B" a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence of having manufactured or sold adulterated food motichur lados is not one of the food articles specified in Appendix "B" prosecution of petitioner for selling lados motichur found adulterated by Analyst as not confirming to the prescribed standard is liable to be quashed. 14. Lastly, he has stated that the Food Inspector did not apply his mind. He has also stated that his case is covered with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Pandit & Ors., 2008(l) RLR 98 , which reads as under: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, Sections 7, 16 and 20-Acquittal by trial Court on the ground that sanction for prosecuting the respondent was in accordance with law as the sanction did not disclose that the concerned authority had applied its mind before according sanction for prosecution. Sanction was in a cyclostyled copy in which the blanks had been filled up. Held, it did not show that the authority concerned looked into material relating to case and accorded sanction after application of mind. Object of Section 20 is that the authority has to satisfy that the case was fit for prosecution. The authority is not only to apply its mind to facts and circumstances but has also to record reasons as to why launching prosecution against the accursed is necessary in public interest. Sanction in the present case not found in accordance with law and found in violation of Section 20. Judgment of trial Court, upheld." 15. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondents and also gone through the record of the case. 16. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 12.1.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 17. 16. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 12.1.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 17. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 18. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 19. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of dany oubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.1.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2. Ajmer. The accused respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bond stand discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******