LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-12

RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On May 22, 1985
RAM CHANDRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Ram Chandra has come forward with a prayer that the order dated 12-10-1983 of the Magistrate in criminal case No. 1590 of 1983 under the Food Adulteration Act, summoning the applicant Ram Chandra, as well as the criminal proceedings directed against him be quashed.

(2.) It would appear that the Food Inspector took sample of Mawa by purchase, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated as well as deficient both in milk fats and non-fatty substance. The Nagar Swasth Adhikari lodged a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act concerning that sample of Mawa. As the person from whom the sample was taken and found to be adulterated told that his name is Raj Kumar and gave the address of one Raj Kumar, in the complaint that name and address was mentioned of the accused. It was, however, later discovered that actually it was not Raj Kumar from whom the sample was taken, but it was the present applicant Ram Chandra son of Hub Lal and the latter gave a false name and address to the Food Inspector that of Raj Kumar. The Food Inspector moved an application that Raj Kumar was not the person from whom the sample was taken, but it was, as ascertained, Ram Chandra applicant. The Magistrate then discharged Raj Kumar and summoned the present applicant Ram Chandra.

(3.) A number of pleas have been raised against such summoning order. It is urged that there is lack of sanction for the prosecution of the applicant, the applicant could not be summoned on an application of the Food Inspector, the applicant is not the man from whom the sample was taken, the Food Inspector forcibly took signature of the applicant on certain papers, regarding which application was given to the superintendent of police, the copies have not been furnished to enable the applicant to defend himself, the applicant was not provided with any phial of the sample taken and his right to apply for analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory is defeated and the prosecution is frivolous.