Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 862 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jawara

2014-04-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This matter is listed today for disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat. 2. This appeal has been filed by the State against the order dated 18.12.1993 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954'). 3. Vide judgment dated 18.12.1993 passed in Criminal Case No.447/1989, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra has acquitted the accused-respondent while holding that the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. The trial court has also observed that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer, Dr. P.R. Parihar (PW-4) has stated that he has granted prosecution sanction on 29.9.1989 whereas the prosecution sanction (Exhibit 15) is dated 19.9.1989. The trial court has also observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that before taking the sample of milk, the same was shaked and the prosecution has also failed to state that how much milk was purchased by it. 4. The learned trial court has, therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent and he is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the State has argued that there is ample evidence available on record to conclude that the respondent has committed offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954, however, the learned trial court without taking into consideration the same has illegally acquitted the respondent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, which are mandatory in nature and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. It is also urged that the prospection sanction (Exhibit 15) is also doubtful because the same is bearing the date which is other than what has been stated by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dr. P.R. Parihar (PW-4) in his statement before the Court. 6. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. P.R. Parihar (PW-4) in his statement before the Court. 6. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. After scrutinising the record, this Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 have been complied with. Dr. P.R. Parihar (PW-4) in his statement has clearly stated that on 29.9.1989, he was working as Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer and on that day, Shri P.C. Harsh, Food Inspector, Barmer has submitted the complaint of the accused-respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. However, from perusal of Exhibit 15, it is clear that the prosecution sanction is granted by Dr. P.R. Parihar (PW-4)on 19.9.1989. 9. In view of above, it is clear that there is discrepancy in the date of grant of prosecution sanction against the respondents and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. When the prosecution sanction itself is doubtful, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the prosecution has failed to make out a case for interference.Hence, there is no force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******