Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 21 (RAJ)

Bhanwara Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2010-01-05

DEO NARAYAN THANVI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the judgment of the learned Addl, Sessions judge, Nohar dated. 23.07.93 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2/90, whereby he affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner Bhanwara Ram under section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act", with six months' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo two months' S.I., passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Cr. Case No. 66/86 vide judgment dated 11.12.89. 2. The charge against the accused was that he was found.selling adulterated milk on 3.7.84 at Rawatsar Octroi Outpost No.2, where he was caught by food Inspector Moman Ram, PW 1, who purchased 660 ml. of milk from him by paying Rs. 1.50 p. The milk was divided into three parts for sample. One sample was sent to the chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur and remaining two samples were sent to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sriganganagar. On receipt of the report of the public Analyst, whereby the milk was found to be adulterated, sanction for prosecution was obtained and complaint was field against the accused under section 7/16 of the Act. The substance of the charge was explained to the accused to which he denied . The prosecution examined three witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P C. He produced one Bhanwar Khan, DW l 'in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as above. His conviction & sentence was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor & gone through the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner, while relying upon the decision of this Court in Paraga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Oil Industries has argued that in this case also, the compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act has not been made, which is mandatory and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. According to him, there is no reference either in the evidence of the Food Inspector Or in the documents produced during trial by the prosecution against the accused which reveals that copy of report of result of the analysis was given to the accused petitioner. 5. I have re-appreciated the evidence of both the Food Inspector and the Supervisor viz; Moman Ram PW 1 and Phool Singh PW 2, respectively. Both have nowhere stated in examination in chief or in the cross examination that copy of report of result of the analysis was given to the petitioner. The documents attached with the analysis was given to the petitioner. The documents attached with the fire are Ex. P 1 to Ex. P. 19. In those documents, there is no reference of any such compliance of giving copy of report of result of the analysis to the petitioner. 6. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under: "13. Report of Public analyst.- (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution, against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." 7. From a bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, it transpires that this provision is mandatory and its non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution. Both the Courts below' have ignored this important legal and mandatory provision in a case of food adulteration, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. From a bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, it transpires that this provision is mandatory and its non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution. Both the Courts below' have ignored this important legal and mandatory provision in a case of food adulteration, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Non-compliance of this provision of giving copy of report of result of the analysis to the petitioner, whose right fro re-analysis has been deprived-of as guaranteed under the law, demands that the judgments of both the courts below be set aside. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner Bhanwara Ram under Section 7/16 of the Act passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar vide his judgment dated 11.12.1989 and six moths' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo two months' S.I. and affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Nohar vide his judgment dated 23.07.1993, is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds shall stands stand cancelled automatically.Revision Allowed. *******