A D KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three persons, namely Rajinder Kumar Dharminder Kumar and Faquir Chand, were partners of the firm M[s. Nand Kishore Dharminder Kumar. They were prosecuted for the sale of adulterated 'Saunf by Rajinder Kumar, to Food Inspector R. K. Mann on Septembr 27, 1976. The sample was lifted at the instance of some programme implementation committee of which Sh. J.K. Jain was member perhaps more than usually active one. The public Analyst found two pieces of Rodent hair and excreta in the sample. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the accused on 17th March, 1978. He noticed that there was some interpolation in the sample memo Ex. PC. This read "This saunf was lying in a open tin (about 4 kg). It was not for sale." There were some erasures and overwriting in the words in the bracket. The learned Magistrate, therefore, directed an enquiry against the Food Inspector R. K. Mann, Dr. A. D. Kumar and J.K. Jain and others, to be instituted under section 340 Cr. P.C. Certain strictures against the conduct of Dr. A. D. Kumar, Health Officer were also passed. A revision against the discharge order was led and Dr. Kumar also filed a miscellaneous application for expunging of the remarks made against him. Dr. Kumar did not appear in spite of several adjournments. By my order dated 19-9-1980 the revision of the Corporation wag dismissed. In respect of the applicant of Dr. Kumar I observed that the remarks respecting the conduct of Dr. Kumar appear to be exaggerated. but not wholly unjustified. I, therefore, did not expunge the remarks.

(2.) On 26-9-1980 Dr. Kumar made an application for recalling the order because he was not heard. This application was dismissed on 29-9-1980. It appears that against that order, he moved an application Cr. A. 855 of 1981 before the Supreme Court which remanded the case to the High Court for re-hearing after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in the matter of expunction of remarks against him. Hence, this case has again come up for consideration before me.

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner has quoted the remarks with which he is aggrieved. They are as follows: