RAMDHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant describes himself as Ramdhan Singh but was convicted in the name of Chhittar Singh alias Ramdhan Singh under Sec. 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a line of Rs. 1000.00 in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the C.J.M. Lalitpur.

(2.) The brief relevant facts appearing from the record arc that the Food Inspector on 25-7-77 at about 7-00 a.m. look a sample of cow's milk from a person who gave out his name as Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh in the presence of witnesses Prem Chand Jain and Ram Singh constable. The public analyst's report dated 21-8-77 shows the fat and non-fatty solids contents to be only 3.3% and 8.5% respectively. The sanction for prosecution by the C.M.O. was accorded on 3-11-77 in the name of Chhitar Singh son of Daryao Singh resident of Gandhi Nagar, New Basti, Lalitpur which was the address noted by the Food Inspector in the sample taking papers. The prosecution before the C. J. M. commenced on 20-11-77. The summons of the accused issued in the name of Chhittar Singh at the abovementioned address were however, unserved because Daryao Singh wrote that he had no son by the name of Chhittar Singh and the address was wrong. Thereupon the Food Inspector applied to the Magistrate for fresh summons to be given to him for service with the assistance of the police. Accordingly fresh summons were issued. These were again received by Daryao Singh who reiterated his case that he had no son Chhittar Singh but was directed to appear in court. Daryao Singh appeared in court on 8-3-78 and made an application reiterating his plea that he had no son by the name of Chhittar Singh. The Food Inspector then made an application on 8-3-78 that it seemed the accused was now giving himself out as Ramdhin Singh (IS SAMAYA RAMDHIN SINGH KENAM SE RAHATA HAI). But when the sample was taken he had given his name as Chhittar Singh wrongly. Therefore, he may be summoned in the name of Ramdhin Singh as son of Daryao Singh. Accordingly summons was issued to Ramdhin Singh and he appeared in the court on 29-3-78 and put in an application stating that if he was required in the case, order for bail may be passed. The Food Inspector verified on this application in writing that he was the very person from whom the sample had been taken and thereupon the accused was admitted to bail. He furnished the bail-bonds as Ramdhin Singh. After trial he was convicted.

(3.) The first point convassed is that the appellant's conviction is vitiated because he is not Chhittar Singh. The Magistrate recorded the conviction and sentenced in the name of Chhittar Singh alias Ramdhin Singh. The Food Inspector was asked about the mistake of name during cross-examination and his statement read as a whole shows that he learnt that a wrong name has been given out after 21-1-78 when the summons was to be served. In my opinion in the sequence of events detailed above, the accused cannot get any benefit from the fact that his name was not Chhittar Singh. If he gave a wrong name to the Food Inspector and was described as such there can be no question of the prosecution being vitiated after his appearance has been secured and the trial has taken place against him.