SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 30-10-1978 under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated chilly powder. The firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and the partners of the firm Subhash Chander Bhatia and Jagan Nath were each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1500.00, in default thereof to further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 1-8-1983 did not examine the merits of the case, but upon a request made by the prosecution remanded the case for recording additional evidence, namely, that of the public analyst on two points: (I) whether the 5% extraneous organic matter found by him on microscopic examination was by weight or by volume, and (2) whether he had found the seals of the outer cover in tact as required by rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Hence, this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. To direct additional evidence after nearly six years, does not seem to be proper in the circumstances of the case. The Form is obviously not the same as prescribed under the amended rules. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, should have considered the merits of the case.

(3.) Consequently, I accept this revision. The impugned order is set aside. No additional evidence, namely, examination of the public analyst shall be recorded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the appeal on merits.