REVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 25/93 by the 1 Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, remanding the case in C.C.No. 1015/92 to the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for fresh trial in accordance with law, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by it, in the said C.C.

(2.) The petitioner is proprietor of the shop in the name and style of 'M/s. Durga Oil Corporation situated at premises No. 16-2-705/9/6, New Malakpet, Hyderabad, dealing in edible oils. P.W.I, Food Inspector of the Flying Squad attached to the Director, I.P.M. and Food & Health Authority, Hyderabad, visited the shop of the petitioner on 10-7-91 along with another. He purchased a sample of 450 gms of ground-nut oil from the petitioner and after following the due procedure contemplated under the law, senta part of it to the public analyst for analysis. The report of the public analyst revealed that the ground-nut oil was adulterated with castor oil. The petitioner gave Ex.P-11 to P.W.1 stating that he purchased the ground-nut oil from 'M/s. Tirumala Trading Company' on 10-7-91. P.W.I, after due enquiry with M/s. Tirumala Trading Company and Commercial Tax Office, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, learnt that the business of Tirumala Trading Company was closed w.e.f. 20-1-91 and that the petitioner could not have purchased the ground-nut oil from Tirumala Trading Company. After completion of investigation, P.W.I laid a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It was taken on file in C.C.No. 33/91 on 24-12-91 under Section 16(1) (a) (ii), 7(i) and (v) and 2(ia) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short "The Act) and note under item No. 17 of Appendix-B under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After appearance of the petitioner, VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, examined the petitioner under Section 251, Cr.P.C. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation and stated that accusation was false. After completion of adducing of prosecution evidence and examination of the petitioner under Section313, Cr.P.C. and at the stage of the arguments, the case was transferred to the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate for disposal according to law. There, the case was re-numbered as C.C. 1015/92 and after hearing the arguments, the learned V Metropolitan magistrate, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) and (v) and 2(ia) (a) r/w Section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The petitioner preferred Crl.A.no. 25/93 against his conviction and sentence and the appellate Court passed the judgment under revision.

(3.) It is clear from the record that the trial Court tried the petitioner summarily and sentenced to two years R.I. without following the procedure contemplated under the second proviso to Section 16-Aof the Act. In view of the said illegality, the appellate Court rightly set aside the conviction and sentence.