Y R TAMBOLI Vs. VIRENDRA LAXMICHAND NAGDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is filed by the State, through Shri Y. R. Tamboli, Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Greater bombay, being aggrieved by the order dated 5th September, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 2nd Court. Mazgaon, Bombay, in C. C. No. 103/s of 1989, discharging the accused-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, under Section 245 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were arraigned before the lower Court under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under section 16 read with Section 17 of the said Act.

(2.) IT was the contention of Mr. Hirlekar, at the outset, that the Revision application was time barred and, therefore, it should be rejected at the outset. He further stated that it was wrongly stated in para 6 at page 6 of the petition that the criminal Revision Application was filed within time. His allegation, in no uncertain term, was that some manipulation was done as far as the date of application, made in the lower Court, for obtaining certified copy was concerned and, therefore, this court by its order dated 20th April, 1999 called for original Register of applications, which was maintained for the purpose of furnishing certified copies, by the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon. According it was sent. After perusing the same. It transpired prima facie that what Mr. Hirlekar had submitted was unfortunately the true state of affairs.

(3.) THE judgment of the lower Court was dated 5th September, 1991 whereby the accused were discharged under Section 245 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the prosecution, application for certified copy of the judgment was made on 6-9-1991, it was ready on 13-7-1992, it was delivered on 17-7-1992 and thereafter present Criminal Revision Application was filed on 19-9-1992. So, according to the prosecution, the date of application for certified copy of the judgment dated 5-9-1991 was 6-9-1991. If one peruses the Register of applications for supply of certified copies of judgments, proceedings etc. , on the filed of the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Greater Bombay, one finds that on 6-9-1991 only one application was made in C. C. No. 64/s/87 and that it was made by one advocate Mr. P. E. Patil and the number of the present case is C. C. No. 103/s of 1989. thus, the statement made by the petitioner that the application for certified copy of the judgment was dated 6-9-1991 appears to be an incorrect statement. After perusing the Second Register, it transpires that application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 103/s of 1989 was actually made on 29th June 1992 by the Food Inspector, Mr. J. B. Deodhar and this entry is at Sr. No. 115 of the said Register. That means, application for certified copy of the judgment was made after about 9 months. Period of filing Revision is of three months and at the threshold, it is very obvious that this Revision Application is time barred. However, Mr. Hirlekar insisted that this fact should not be brushed aside lightly since false statement on oath was made by affidavit that the Revision was filed within time blithe Inspector of Food and Drug Administration Mr. I. G. Lokapure, who had affirmed the Revision Application.