BHAROSI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are that one Gajraj was prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Applicant Bharosi Lal stood surety for producing the accused before the Magistrate. The surety bond was executed by the Applicant before the Food Inspector, Agra. Girraj accused, however, absconded. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the Applicant to show cause as to why the entire amount of the penalty be not realised from him. The Applicant failed to show cause and hence, on 20 -10 -1967, the learned Magistrate ordered the entire amount of Rs. 1,000/ - as penalty to be realised from the Applicant. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the Applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts below the Applicant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) I have heard Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Sri K.S. Sinha, the learned brief holder, for the State. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the bond in the instant case was not executed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the orders passed by the courts below have to be set aside. There is no force in this contention. Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act deals with powers of Food Inspectors and the second proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 10 is relevant in this connection and reads as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam : AIR 1952 SC 405, in which it was held as follows: