Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 868 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Laxminarain

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 22.5.1993 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner has acquitted the accused respondents 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 22.5.1993 passed in Criminal Case No.237/1992, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 while holding that the Chief Medical and health Officer has granted prosecution sanction against the respondents vide Exhibit P.10 after applying its mind. The trial court has also held that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of packing and sealing the samples, the procedure laid down under Rule 16(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1955') has been followed. The trial court has also observed that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 have been followed, as the prosecution has failed to inform the respondents to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority Analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that before granting the prosecution sanction, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bikaner has applied its mind and after perusing the report and papers submitted by the Food Inspector has granted prosecution sanction in public interest. It is also contended that the procedure laid down under rule 16(d) of the Rules of 1955 has been followed by the Food Inspector at the time of packing and sealing the samples. It is also argued that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 has also been followed in the matter. However, the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondents though ample evidence regarding their involvement in the crime is available on record. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and, therefore, the learned court below has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents for the said offence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and, therefore, the learned court below has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents for the said offence. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bikaner has granted prosecution sanction against the respondents in a mechanical manner without application of mind and the Food Inspector has failed to comply with the procedure laid down under the provisions of Rule 16(d) of the Rules of 1955 and Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, which is mandatory and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated 22.5.1993. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of prosecution sanction (Exhibit P.10), it appears that there is no mention in it that Chief Medical and Health Officer has gone through the record and the documents submitted by the Food Inspector Shri Pachi Lal Joshi (PW-1). It is settled proposition of law that before granting prosecution sanction, the sanctioning authority has to apply its mind to the records placed before it and has to also find out the nature of offence committed by the accused. While granting the prosecution sanction, the sanctioning authority is required to mention one or two of various types of adulteration as described in Section 2 of the Act of 1954. As per the provisions of law, the sanction order should not be vague and omnibus and sanctioning authority is required to point out the relevant particulars on the basis of which the prosecution was based. So far as regarding the material available on record in respect of compliance of the procedure laid down under Rule 16(d) of the Rules of 1955 is concerned, it has not been born out that the said procedure has been followed by the Food Inspector while packing and sealing the samples. There is no evidence available on record to suggest that the procedure laid down under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 has also been followed by the prosecution before filing complaint against the respondents. 8. There is no evidence available on record to suggest that the procedure laid down under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 has also been followed by the prosecution before filing complaint against the respondents. 8. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, there is no force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******