M.C.D Vs. AMAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.P. Anand, Food Inspector, visited the shop of one Khayal Dass in Pul Bangash on Aug. 14, 1969 at about 1-30 P.M. Khayal Dass who was carrying on the business of sale of hard boiled sugar confectionary under the name and style of M/s. J.K. Amar Lal was asked by Shri V.P. Anand to sell to him some "Goli Khancl". Shri Anand purchased thirty packets of this article of food and pa d Rs. 3.00as price thereof. He gave notice to Khayal Dass that the said purchase had been made for purposes of analysis under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The other formalities provided by the Act were also complied with and the sample taken was sealed as prescribed by law. One of the sample parts was sent to the Public Analyst who found that the same was adulterated. A complaint was accordingly filed against Khayal Dass and his firm under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the aforesaid Act. Khayal Dass and his firm were both prosecuted. During the course of the trial of Khayal Dass and his firm, the accused pleaded warranty contending that the impugned item had been purchased under warranty from one Amar Lal, the present respondent. The trial court being of the view that the provisions of section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were attracted decided to proceed against Amar Lal also who was, in consequence, impleaded and prosecuted. The trial court discharged the firm of Khayal Dass, M/s. J.K. Amar Lal. Khayal Dass himself was acquitted on the trial court holding that a written warranty had been proved by Him given to him by Amar Lal. As far as Amar Lal is concerned the trial court held that the prosecution case had been made out against him and he was guilty within the meaning of Sec. 7 of the said Act and liable to be punished under Sec. 16 of the Act. The plea that Amar Lal was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 4 of Probation of Offenders' Act, being under 21 years of age was not accepted. Amar Lal was, therefore, on conviction sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine it was ordered that Amar Lal would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 4 months. Amar Lal appealed to the Sessions Court. No appeal against the acquittal of Khayal Dass was filed.

(2.) The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal filed by Amar Lal on two grounds. First of all it was held that inasmuch as the provisions of section 351(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were violated, the trial would be vitiated. Secondly it was held that no retrial even could be ordered in view of the fact that Khayal Dass and his firm had been acquitted and discharged respectively, The Municipal Corporation of Delhi being dissatisfied with this decision have come up in appeal to this court by special leave.

(3.) Only two points arise for consideration. First whether the trial of Amar Lal was vitiated on account of prosecution witnesses examined against Khayal Dass not being reproduced and reheard, in other words, as there was no...........fresh trial of Amar Lal after he was impleaded as an accused under Sec. 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The second point is whether the trial court (can) proceed even now even after Khayal Dass and his firm have been respectively acquitted and discharged in view of the provisions of Sec. 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.