G S WAGH Vs. ANANDA LAHANU DHONNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision application, the original complainant desires to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1980 on a very limited ground. The order of acquittal was passed on 4th December 1981. It is unnecessary to narrate the whole facts in this case. One Ananda Lahanu Dhonnar was the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2415 of 1979, which was instituted upon the complaint made by the Food Inspector, Nasik Municipal Council at Nasik. The prosecution was founded on the alleged contravention of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondent No. 1 accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. This conviction was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 29th September 1980.

(2.) The original accused filed an appeal against this judgment of conviction being Appeal No. 149 of 1980 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik. This appeal was finally heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nasik and came to be allowed by him by his order as stated above. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not issue notice to the original complainant in this appeal and the appeal was allowed. It is against this appellate judgment and order of acquittal that present revision application is filed.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner Shri Apte raised the only point that in the absence of the original complainant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as he failed to comply with Section 385 sub-section (1) Clause (iii) of the Cr.P.C. It is only on this short point that arguments are addressed by the learned Advocate before me. The short question which arises for determination in this Revision application is whether notice to the complainant is essential when the appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction it appears that Cl. (iii) of sub-section (i) was introduced by the new amendment of the Code. It is obvious that this case was originally instituted upon a complaint made by Food Inspector i.e. the Petitioner. The Cr.P.C. does not define the expression institution of case on complaint. However, under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code it is made clear the cognizance been taken by the Magistrate under certain circumstances. The learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence upon receiving the complaint of facts which constitute offence upon police report on such facts, upon information received from any person other than police officer or on his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Kindly see Section 190. We are not concerned in this case with the third clause. Admittedly, this is not a case filed by the police. This was a prosecution filed on the basis of a complaint made by the Food Inspector in the discharge of his duties. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.