Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 856 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Laxmi Narain

2016-06-10

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. This criminal appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 22.05.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 298/92 whereby, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondents for the charges levelled against them under Section 7/16(a)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. As per brief facts of the case, on 28.08.92, the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the respondent Laxmi Narayan and took sample of Ghee from the shop of respondent in presence of Chief Medical and Health Officer, City Magistrate and officers of Commercial Taxes Officer. The Food Inspector took sample of Ghee and sealed in three different bottles. Thereafter, upon chemical examination of sample, the same was found to be adulterated and therefore, trial proceeded against the appellant and charges were levelled against the appellant for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of P.F. Act. The accused respondent in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him however, no evidence was produced in his defence. 3. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.05.1993 acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of P.F. Act on the ground that prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that from the statement of Food Inspector it is clear that he had sent all the papers to C.M & H.O and it has been further corroborated by C.M. & H.O in Ex.P/10. It is further argued that Food Inspector has clearly mentioned that the samples were filled in the bottle and the same were found intact till it reached to the Public Analyst. The evidence of food inspector together with the analysis show that all requirements of the Rules had been satisfied. It is argued that learned court below has not considered an important aspect of the matter that when the accused respondent did not request for getting the samples examined from Central Food Laboratory, then the acquittal cannot be based while referring to Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. I have gone through the evidence on record and the judgment passed by the learned trial court regarding acquittal of the respondents. 6. 5. I have gone through the evidence on record and the judgment passed by the learned trial court regarding acquittal of the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that letter Ex.P/10 is a typed letter which does not reveal that sanctioning authority had perused the relevant papers. In this regard, a finding has been recorded by the learned trial court in para 16 of the judgment that compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 16(d) of the Act has not been made. It is also not in dispute that the accused was not informed about the filing of complaint and compliance of Rule 13(2) of the Act has also been made. 7. In Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 PFA Cases, 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Section 13(2) - Report of the Public Analyst not supplied to the accused-consequently he could not get his own sample examined by the Central Laboratory-it is a very valuable right given to him, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant because of non supply of the Public Analyst's report as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. The High Court having noticed this, yet rejected the plea on the mere ground that such an objection was not raised before the trial Court. It is not a question of an objection, but it is a question of prejudice. Such a point can be raised even at a later stage if material on record supports the same. In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside.” 8. In the case of State of Raj. v. Ravi Kumar, RLW 2003 (2) Raj. 925, this Court has observed that the accused has a valuable right of getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and if he is deprived of this valuable right by the prosecution then in the event of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) and Rule 9-A framed thereunder entitles the accused for acquittal. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the complaint under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1954 was made in letter and spirit. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of Act, 1954 confers a valuable right to the accused respondents to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the complaint under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1954 was made in letter and spirit. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of Act, 1954 confers a valuable right to the accused respondents to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It is clearly contemplated 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, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person 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 14-A, 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, 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 Central Food Laboratory. The prosecution has also failed to ensure that the copy of report reached to accused-respondents in time. 9. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial court having rightly and properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and the relevant material, is found to have arrived at just and proper conclusion of not holding the accused respondents guilty and acquitting them of the alleged charge. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in this criminal appeal. 10. The same is hereby dismissed.