Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1848 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2017-08-17

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On the strength of being the Food Inspector competent to lift samples of food stuffs Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav claims to have lifted a sample of milk from the petitioner on 07.10.1984 at the toll gate of Rawatsar, Hanumangarh. The sample was found to be adulterated, in that, milk solid fat content was less than the prescribed standard. 3. At the forefront of the issue was the authority of Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav to be authorised to act as the Food Inspector. The only document to establish the same is Exhibit-P1A dated 26.02.1982. It is a certified copy a gazette notification listing names and the areas of 60 Food Inspectors. 4. Regretfully, neither the learned trial Judge nor the learned appellate Judge bothered to read Exhibit-P1A. The two page document contains the wording of the notification and as per the same the names of the persons authorised to act as Food Inspectors in the respective areas is enclosed. What was filed in the Court is one page (the second) of the list. The names are from serial No. 24 to 60. Names at serial No. 1 to 23 are missing. Names at S.No. 24 to 60 do not contain the name of Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav. The notification Exhibit-P1A names Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav on its front page as one of the Food Inspector, but the area for which he can act is not indicated. 5. There is a corrigendum notification, Exhibit-P3A dated 21.08.1984, as per which pertaining to the notification Exhibit-P1/A, the name at serial No. 9: Rajendra Kumar Vaishanav is to be read as Shri Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav and the area in which he was authorised to act as the Food Inspector be changed to Panchayat Samiti, Padampur to Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh. 6. Meaning thereby, that Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav could act as the Food Inspector of Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh. The fellow seems to be thoroughly conferred. In the complaint Exhibit-P13, in para 3, he writes that when he lifted the sample he was in-charge of the Punchayat Samiti, Padampur. It assumes importance that when the complaint was typed it was scribed that he was in-charge of the Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh. He scored of the word 'Hanumangarh' in his hand wrote the word Padampur. 7. Regretfully, the trial Court and the appellate Court have not analysed the above noted exhibits. 8. It assumes importance that when the complaint was typed it was scribed that he was in-charge of the Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh. He scored of the word 'Hanumangarh' in his hand wrote the word Padampur. 7. Regretfully, the trial Court and the appellate Court have not analysed the above noted exhibits. 8. A serious doubt is therefore cast upon the authority of Shri Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav to act as the Food Inspector in the area in question. It also assumes importance that during cross-examination, Shri Rajendra Prasad Vaishanav admitted that he could not lift any food sample from and within the Municipal limits of the Municipality of Hanumangarh. As noted above the milk sample has been lifted at the toll gate and there is uncertainty whether it was from the side of the toll gate within the Municipalities or the area falling in the Panchayat Samiti. 9. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. The petition succeeds. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner is quashed.