MALIK AMRIT LAL Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was prosecuted in the Court of Shri S.L. Malhotra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 49 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.)

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 27,4.1970, the Food Inspector of the New Delhi Municipal Committee visited premises No 2, Narindra Place, Parliament Street, New Delhi and found the petitioner running a Dhaba therein and cooked vegetables, cooked meat, Chapaties, Chhole-Kulchey etc. were being sold without licence and under insanitary conditions. The food articles were kept exposed to dust and flies and washing arrangements were not satisfactory. The prosecution examined two witnesses before the charge was framed. These witnesses were - (1) Sh. R.N. Malhotra, Food Inspector, and (2) Sh. R.C. Sharma, Municipal Prosecutor. At this stage, the petitioner filed two applications, one dated 4.9.1970 and the other dated 20.10.1970 In those applications, the petitioner raised certain objections against the validity of the prosecution and prayed that the complaint filed by the Municipal Committee be dismissed as being groundless. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have passed any order on these applications, but, after hearing arguments, he proceeded to frame a charge against the petitioner on 30.10.1970 under sections 7/23/16 of the Act. Thereupon the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for quashing the charge framed against him by the learned Magistrate, The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the learned Magistrate was wrong in framing the charge against the petitioner without deciding the questions raised by the petitioner in the two applications referred to above. He has, therefore, submitted a report to this Court with a recommendation that the charge framed by the Learned Magistrate to be quashed and that the learned Magistrate be directed to decide the questions raised by the petitioner in the two applications before the framing of the charge.

(3.) The petitioner has filed an application C M. No. 811/71 in this Court to the effect that the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate should be quashed finally and the learned Magistrate should not be directed to decide the questions raised by the petitioner in the two applications. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the two applications may be summarised as follows :