STATE (DELHI ADMN ) Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision petition against order dated 17th December 1983 of a learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the respondent succinctly are that on 18th April 1983 at about 4.15 P.M. Food Inspector Satish Kumar took a sample of Cow's milk for analysis in accordance with the provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made there -under from one Ram Phal when he was found carrying milk for sale in truck No. URJ -3363 which was parked in front of the office of Transport Corporation of India Limited, Kamla Market, New Delhi. The sample of the said article of food was taken from him as vendor. The sample milk was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the same was found to be adulterated as per report received from the Public Analyst. Subsequently, the Food Inspector contacted the respondent and the aforesaid Ram Phal on 19th June 1983 and 13th June 1983 and obtained written statements from them to the effect that the said milk belonged to the respondent. Eventually a complaint was instituted against both of them under section 7/16 of the Act for selling/having in their possession for sale milk which was found to be adulterated.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate after recording precharge evidence discharged the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the confessional statement, Ex. P.W.2/F, which was delivered by the respondent to the F.I. was hit by the provisions of Section 42 of the Evidence Act. A perusal of Section 24 would show that a confessional statement made to a person in authority is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat of compromise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person ground which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.

(3.) I have gone through the evidence of Food Inspector Shri S.K. Nanda (PW2) with the assistance of counsel for the parties. He deposed in his examination -in -chief that he visited the premises of the respondent, who was carrying on business under the name and style of Pawan Dairy at Ansari Road, Daryaganj, on 10th June 1983 and the latter informed him in writting (Ex. PW 2/F) that he was the owner of the milk lying in the aforesaid truck No, URJ -3363 on 18th April 1983 as also of the milk of which the sample was taken. He further told him that the vender, viz. Ram Phal was his salesman. Likewise, the vender too gave him in writing Ex. PW 2/G to the effect that he was the salesman of the milk belonging to accused No. 2, viz the respondent and that he too was the driver of the aforesaid truck. However, no suggestion was made to this witness by the learned counsel for the defence that the said confessional statements had been obtained from them by the F.I., who was obviously a person in authority in the context of the instant case, by any inducement, threat or compromise. So, the question of the said confessional statements being hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act does not arise. To this extent the impugned order is certainly found on mis -application of Section 24 of the evidence Act and cannot be sustained.