BHAGWAN DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused, the complainant is the 1st Respondent and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are accused Nos. 1 arid 3 respectively in C.C. No. 59/84 on the file of the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed this application under section 482, Cr. P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 59/84 on the file of the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to quash the order dated 6.10.1986, wherein a charge was framed against the petitioner and the other accused. The charge is as follows:-

(2.) On 31.10.1983 the Food Inspector visited the shop of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was found having stock of 4 Kgs. of compound asafoetida in the form of packets of 50 grams each. The Food Inspector (P.W. 1) purchased from the 2nd respondent 12 packets of 50 grams each i e. 600 grams by paying Rs. 48. The packets in question were packed in Aug., 1983. After following the procedure, the same was sent to the Analyst and the Analyst (P.W. 2) found the same containing 2 06 per cent, ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric as against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.5 per cent under Rule 0-4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as per the report dated 3.12.1983, and the sample was adulterated. On 29.8.1984 P.W. 1 filed a complaint against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 3rd Respondent was impleaded as Accused No. 3 by the Magistrate. The 2nd Respondent stated to P.W. 1 that he has purchased the commodity in question from the 3rd Respondent on 23.2 1983 by Invoice No. 902 and subsequently it has been stated that the purchase was under invoice dated 19.8.1983. The invoice shows 200 packets of 50 grams each was purchased. But at the time of seizure, only 80 packets of 50 grams each were found. The prosecution has examined the Food Inspector as P.W. 1 and the Public Analyst as P.W. 2. On the basis of argument advanced by the learned Counsel, the Magistrate passed an order that at this stage he was not satisfied prima facie that the Analyst report is not correct and there is no adulteration. Against that order these proceedings have been initiated.

(3.) Mr. Ganatra, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this Court has got right to consider the pleas raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of grounds and the view that has been taken by the Magistrate is not correct. It is further contended that P.W. 1 the Food Inspector is not a competent person to file the charge-sheet and that P.W. 2 has not conducted the analysis properly and she simply filed the report and, therefore, it cannot be constructed that there is a valid report.