MOHD. SAUD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had decided this revision application on 18th May, 1981 and had dismissed the same on that date. Since the case was listed peremptorily, I did not honour the illness slip which had been sent by Sri Chaturvedi.

(2.) An application has been filed today by Sri Chaturvedi that on account of his illness he could not come that day. In the interest of justice, he prayed that he may be heard on the merits and my order dated 18-5-81 may be recalled. Sri Chaturvedi also agreed to argue the case if the order is recalled so that there may be no further delay in the disposal of the revision. In the special circumstances of the case 1 have set aside my order dated 18th May, 1981 and proceeded to hear Mr. Chaturvedi in support of this application.

(3.) Two points have been raised by Sri Chaturvedi. The first point raised by him is that Sri M.S. Som was not posted as Food Inspector in that area, and he was not authorised to take the sample from the shop of the accused-applicant in Kasha Tanda. In this connection I have very carefully perused the statement of the Food Inspector as also the impugned order, passed by the courts below. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the Food Inspector to suggest that his jurisdiction to take the sample from the shop of the applicant at Kasba Tanda was ever challenged. If such challenges have been thrown, the prosecution would lead evidence in rebuttal. Further it may be noted that neither in the trial court nor in the appellate court judgments, is there anything to indicate that the jurisdiction of Sri Som to take the sample in question at the shop of the accused was ever challenged and argued before this court.