Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

Udaybhan Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-02-05

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. This case has been listed today for consideration of I.A.No.5362/2012 which is an application for staying the proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.2427/2005 in the Court of JMFC, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that since a very short point is involved in this case, it may be heard finally and decided. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. 4. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following relief : “By allowing this petition, impugned order dated 28.4.2012 be quashed.” 5. In nutshell, facts of the case are that one private complaint was preferred by the Food Inspector against the petitioners by alleging that on 23.5.2002 bottles of cold drinks were purchased. After following the procedure prescribed under the rules sample was seized and sealed properly. Thereafter, sample was sent for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst dated 27.6.2002, sample of cold drink was found adulterated and misbranded. Complaint was filed. Allegations were also made that at the time of purchasing of the article, licence for sale was also not possessed by the petitioners. Charges were framed for the offence punishable under sections 2(1)(d)(j)(k) and 7(i) and 7(ii) 7(v) read with section section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 20.1.2010, arguments were advanced before charge that as per the complaint filed by the Food Inspector samples of cold drink were purchased on 23.5.2002 from Ganga Cold Drinks, Hanuman Chowk, Ganjbasoda. Then the samples were sealed and Paper Slip Code No.RS/59/2002/083059 was affixed and again sample was sealed. Sample was sent for public analyst report and on 24.5.2002 sample was received by the Public Analyst. Sample packet receipt Ex.P-24 was given. According to that sample received was bearing slip number RS/60/2002/083060. Memo and seal impression receipt was also given, Ex.P-25, by public analyst thereby again it was mentioned that the sample bearing paper slip number RS/60/2002/083060 was received along with Form No.VII. Thereafter, sample was examined and public analyst report dated 27.6.2002 was given and according to that sample was found adulterated and misbranded. Here again, it was mentioned in the report Ex.P-27 that the sample examined was bearing Slip No. RS/60/2002/083060. Thereafter, sample was examined and public analyst report dated 27.6.2002 was given and according to that sample was found adulterated and misbranded. Here again, it was mentioned in the report Ex.P-27 that the sample examined was bearing Slip No. RS/60/2002/083060. This clearly indicates Udaybhan Singh and others v. State of M.P. that sample which was purchased was not sent for analysis. The public analyst report received by the complainant does not belong to the sample purchased. Public Analyst report clearly indicated that sample examined was having code and paper slip No.RS/60/2002/083060. Nowhere it was mentioned in the report of the public analyst Ex.P-27 that it belonged to the sample bearing paper slip no. RS/59/2002/083059 but even then on the basis of public analyst report, Ex.P-27, complaint was entertained and cognizance was taken against the petitioners. 7. Objection was overruled by the trial Court on the ground that Ram Singh, Food Inspector, has stated in his evidence recorded before charge that in fact purchased sample was sent for analysis but due to mistake wrong number was mentioned in the papers. When Criminal Revision No.49/2010 was preferred, vide order dated 28.4.2012 revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha dismissed it on the ground that wrong number was mentioned because of clerical mistake. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated as it is evident. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in the aforesaid circumstances it should also be presumed that the petitioners were falsely implicated also in regard to non-possession of licence. It is also submitted that trial is still pending. 8. Prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been opposed on the ground that objections raised by the petitioners may be taken into consideration by the trial Court after recording the entire evidence. 9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, entire record has been perused. 10. On perusal of paragraph 8 of the private complaint, it is clearly mentioned that code and paper slip bearing No.RS/59/2002/083059 was affixed. Admittedly, sample sent for analysis was received by the public analyst by Ex.P-24 and P-25 on 24.5.2012 bearing number RS/60/2002/083060. 10. On perusal of paragraph 8 of the private complaint, it is clearly mentioned that code and paper slip bearing No.RS/59/2002/083059 was affixed. Admittedly, sample sent for analysis was received by the public analyst by Ex.P-24 and P-25 on 24.5.2012 bearing number RS/60/2002/083060. It is also an admitted fact that the report of the public analyst Ex.P-27 sent by him after examination of the sample belongs to sample bearing paper slip No.RS/60/2002/083060 meaning thereby sample which was purchased was neither sent for analysis nor the same was examined by the public analyst. No report in regard to the adulteration of article was sent by the public analyst in regard to the sample purchased by the complainant/Food Inspector. Trial Court and revisional Court both are having wrong notion that such kinds of mistakes can be ignored only on the basis of imagination that it may be clerical mistake as stated by the Food Inspector in his evidence. 11. For reaching on the just conclusion of the matter, relevant provision of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would be necessary for taking into consideration which is as follows : “13(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 persons 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 14A, 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.” 12. A reading of the aforesaid section goes to show that 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 then only the Local (Health) Authority shall institute the prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of article of food was taken and other concerning persons as mentioned in the provision. 13. Here in this case it is clear that the sample purchased was not sent for analysis and the report received does not belong to the sample purchased, therefore, institution of the prosecution itself is invalid and illegal. If the entire facts and circumstances of the case of the prosecution are taken into consideration in their totality even then petitioners cannot be convicted. Thus, any kind of proceeding cannot be allowed to continue against the petitioners otherwise it would be amounting to abuse of the process of law. 14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 49/2010 and order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.2427/2005 are hereby set aside. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2427/2005 [Food Inspector v. Udaybhan Singh Tomar and others], are set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of all the offences punishable under sections 2(1)(d)(j)(k) and 7(i) and 7(ii) 7(v) read with section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Copy of this order be sent immediately to the Courts below for compliance.