GHANSHYAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Ghan Shyam against the judgment and order dated 8-6-1981 of Sri K. M. Chaturvedi Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1980 and maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the applicant by the learned Magistrate under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 7-3-1979 at about 7 P. M. Sri T. R. Varma Food Inspector, Mehroni found the applicant carrying pure Ghee for sale at the Bus stand. Since the food Inspector suspected adulteration in this Ghee he purchased a sample of the Ghee, divided in three parts, which was sealed in three clean and dry phials. One of these when sent to the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated. The applicant made an application under Section 13 (2) of the Act and then this Ghee was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who gave his opinion that it was adulterated and did not conform to the standard of ghee for U. P. Sanction was, therefore, ob tained and a complaint filed against the applicant in which he has been convict ed as aforesaid. It was urged that the Public Analyst found that the vegetable Oil Basa and oil was mixed with this Ghee, but the Central Food Laboratory did not find that this Ghee was mixed with any vegetable oil or Basa and because the Central Food Laboratory gave a report which was wholly different from the report of the Public Analyst, therefore, a fresh sanction should have been obtain ed before the applicant should be prosecuted. I am unable to agree with this contention, because it is only provided that a complaint shall be filed with the sanction of the medical authorities and when this complaint was filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was obtained. This case was, therefore, properly filed and since it was properly filed it had to be decided judicially. If during the trial another report from the Central Food Laboratory was received then no fresh sanction was required be cause sanction is needed only at the time when the case is filed and cognizance taken I will, therefore, hold that the case was properly filed and it was properly decided by the lower Courts and no fresh sanction was necessary. Then, it was urged that the report of the Director, Central Food Labora tory, had surpassed the report of the Public Analyst. It was on the basis of this report that the Ghee was found to be adulterated and this report had to be put to the applicant under Section 313, Cr. P. C. but it was not so put. This omission to put this report to the applicant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was an omission far reaching consequences, because very important evidence against the applicant on which he was going to be convicted was not put to him and he was not allowed an opportunity of explaining this evidence. Since this report was not put to the applicant under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Therefore the conviction of the applicant cannot be upheld. This revision is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds shall be discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. .