Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 169 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sachin Gupta

2014-03-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) The appellant has questioned the acquittal order, dated 30th December, 2005, made by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (V), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trail Court’) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2.It appears that the Food Inspector, while performing his official duties, inspected the shop of the accused and obtained samples for analysis. The samples were sent for analysis, found adulterated and accordingly, complaint was presnted against the accused under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3.The prosecution led evidence in support of its case. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence, acquitted the accused. 4.I have gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which are legally sound for the following reasons: (i) The prosecution has failed to prove that the samples were taken as a representative sample and as per the procedure which was to be followed in terms of the mandate of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. (ii) The prosecution has also failed to prove that the Food Inspector has complied with the mandate of Section 13 (2) of the Act which mandates that notice is to be sent to the accused for information that the sample was found adulterated and he had choice to opt for second analysis, which has not been done. (iii) The prosecution has not been able to prove, prima facie, that notice was served upon the accused in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Rather, the prosecution has admitted in para 5 of the memo of appeal that the said notice was received back undelivered. 5.In the given circumstances, the prosecution has committed the breach of the mandate of the said provision of law. 6.Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned judgment merits to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. 7.Send down the record.