Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1557 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Net Ram

2015-08-20

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant State appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.8.1992 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Cr. Case No.25/85 offence under Section 7/16 PFA Act whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. 2. As per the brief facts of the case on 20.9.1984 the Food Inspector took the sample of milk after purchasing from the respondent and same was preserved in 3 bottles and sealed. The papers were prepared and after obtaining the sanction filed complaint in the learned trial court for trail. The learned trial court after recording evidence finally acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him. 3. The instant cr. appeal has been filed by the State raising ground that judgment of the learned trial court is contrary to the facts and law, so also, on the ground that complaint was filed by the authorised Food Inspector for the offence committed in the area prescribed in the notification, but the learned trial court while presuming that the area is not notified and complainant Ramswaroop Sagar was not competent to inspect and file the complaint, therefore on this technical ground, acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him. 4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the local health officer granted sanction because Ramswaroop Sagar was authorised inspector to inspect and take sample but ignoring the said fact, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent, therefore, the judgment impugned which is passed on technical ground may kindly be quashed. 5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor I have perused the judgment impugned. In my opinion, the acquittal is not only based upon incompetency of the officer concerned but on merit also. Therefore, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. In my opinion, the acquittal is not only based upon incompetency of the officer concerned but on merit also. Therefore, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. It is also worthwhile to observe that case was registered in the year 1985 and decided in the month of August, 1992, therefore, at this stage, this court has examined the merit of the case in addition to the technical ground upon which the learned trial court acquitted the respondent and found that no error has been committed by the learned trial court to acquit the respondent from the charge levelled against him. In views of the above, there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this cr. appeal is hereby dismissed.