GHISA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs 1000.00 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur (Corporation). The appeal filed by him before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur has been allowed on 28th April, 1977 and the case remanded to the Magistrate for retrial after re-framing the charge. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order and the record of the case. It appears that a sample of Chaney-ki-Dal 750 Grams, was purchased by the Food Inspector at about 11 A.M. on 29th Nov., 1975 from the applicant. It was divided into three bottles, which were duly sealed. One of the bottles in the possession of the Food Inspector was seat to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst dated 15-2-1976 indicated that the sample was adulterated, since it contained Khesari Dal 1%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted as above. The statement of the accused before charge was that the Dal was not for sale, but it has been brought for his own consumption. He claims to have given this information to the Food Inspector at the time the sample was taken. With regard to the report of the Public Analyst, the case of the applicant appears to be that the same was not received by him. He stated in his statement that he had purchased the Dal from the market and he knew nothing about it.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge framed against the accused was vague and did not specify the result of the analysis by the Public Analyst nor did it indicate the exact details with regard to the commission of the offence. As such the applicant has been severely prejudiced for he did not know what case he had to meet. The contention is that the charge framed was illegal and the applicant who has been seriously prejudiced should have been acquitted. I have carefully perused the charge dated 22nd Sept., 1976 framed by the Magistrate. It simply stated that the accused was found selling and exposing for sale adulterated Chane-ki-Dal and thereby is punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is significant to note that the charge did not mention at all that the applicant had contravened the relevant provisions of the Act, inasmuch as the sample of Dal taken from him was on analysis found to be mixed with Khesari Dal. The Food Inspector has stated that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused by registered post. No evidence of this fact, however, has been brought on the record . In cross-examination the Food Inspector admitted that he had not sent the copy of the report himself, but it was dispatched to the office of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. No receipt or acknowledgement had been filed. Thus even the Sessions Judge appears to be of the opinion that there was nothing on the record to show that the applicant can be taken to have known the basis on which the charge of adulteration was framed. Even in the statement under Sec. 313 though general reference is made to the report of the Public Analyst, the specific case of adulteration of the sample in question by the mixture of Khesari Dal has not been put to the accused. The finding recorded by the Sessions Judge after considering all these circumstances, in this connection is as follows :