STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial court had convicted the accused-respondent under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in case of default three months further R.I. Aggrieved the accused had tiled an appeal which has been allowed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) Having heard learned State Counsel and gone through the record, I find that the basis of allowing the appeal adopted by the lower appellate court is not correct. It has been stated by the lower appellate court that Sri Parmanand Singhal, Chief Food Inspector (P.W. 1) had admitted that he could tell the number and the date of the information given to the accused about the report of the Public Analyst after seeing the record of the Chief Medical Officer's office, Rampur. On the basis of this statement the lower appellate court has concluded that the witness had no fastened knowledge that any such information had been conveyed to the accused. From the persual of the judgment of the lower appellate court as well as the statement of the aforesaid witness Sri Parmanand Singhal, it is crystal clear that the said witness had specifically asserted on oath that the report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the accused. Of course, he stated that in support of his said statement on oath he is prepared to produce the relevant record from the office of the Chief Medical Officer. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the lower appellate court was not right in brushing aside the said definite statement on oath and in allowing the appeal filed by the accused and in concluding that the provision of Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with. This conclusion would have been arrived only after seeing the relevant record of the Office of the Chief Medical Officer. In my opinion, on the facts of this case, it was the duty of the lower appellate court to have summoned the relevant record from the office of the Chief Medical Officer concerned. The same having not been done, to my mind, the judgment passed by the lower appellate court dated 20.4.1978 is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the result, the Govt, appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the lower appellate court dated 20.4.1978 is set aside with directions to the lower appellate court to common the relevant record from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer concerned and decide the appeal in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.