J K JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE persons namely Rajinder Kumar, Dharminder Kumar and Faquir Chand partners of M/s. Nand Kishore Dharminder Kumar Gadodia Market, Khari Baoli Delhi were prosecuted for sale of adulterated sounf by Rajinder Kumar. One of them, to the Food Inspector, R.K. Manu, on September 27,1976. This sample was lifted at the instance of programme implementation committee of which Shri. J.K. Jain the present petitioner, was a member. One of the functions of this committee was to see that sale of adulterated goods is put an end to. The public analyst on analysis of the sample found two pieces of rodent hair or excreta in the sample. He accordingly opined that the sample was adulterated. Mr. B.N. Chaturvedi, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in whose court the complaint was filed examined some witnesses of the prosecution for consideration of charge : He ultimately came to the conclusion that the sample was not adulterated and all the three accused were discharged. He however, made certain observations in his impugned judgment dated March 17, 1978 against the present petitioner Mr. J.K. Jain and one Dr. A.D. Kumar Zonal Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In this petition Shri J.K. Jain prays for the expunction of the following remarks and observations as made by the learned Magistrate against him in the judgment.

(2.) SHRI J.K. Jain was admittedly, not given any notice to explain his alleged role in the matter of the lifting of the sample by the Food Inspector, R.K. Manu. He also did not appear as a witness for the prosecution. The question is as to whether under these circumstances the learned Magistrate was justified in indulging such severe criticism and passing such severe strictures and remarks against the petitioner. Shri P.S. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the State stated that in similar matter namely Dr. A.D. Kumar v. State reported as 1983(1) FAC 257, Mr. Justice M.L. Jain of this court had the occasion of the dealing with these remarks as also some other remarks as made against Dr. A.D. Kumar as well and all these remarks were impugned as against him. Mr. Sharma states that in view of the above decision of this court he does not oppose the present petition. Apart from the concession as made by Shri Sharma, I may say that the impugned observations and remarks as made by the learned Magistrate were wholly uncalled for and were unjustified. As mentioned by me already above Shri J.K. Jain was neither cited as a prosecution witness nor was he examined as a witness in the case No. opportunity was also afforded to him to show cause against the suggestions as given by the accused in that case that the Food Inspector has been coerced by Shri J.K. Jain, to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Under such a situation the remarks and the observations of the learned Magistrate were wholly uncalled for and unjustified. I accordingly allow the petition and the aforesaid remarks shall stand expunged from the judgment of the learned Magistrate.