CHATURBHUJ RAMPRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision-petition has been preferred by the applicant against his conviction Under Section 7 (5) read with Section 16 (l) (a) (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1983, arising out of the judgment and findings dated 7-10-1983, in Criminal Case No. 1533 of 1988, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh.

(2.) THE applicant is a milk seller. On 11-7-1982, he was selling cow milk in the village Tendukheda when P. W. l Food Inspector Shri J. K. Trivedi took sample of the milk from him and sent it to Public Analyst, Bhopal, who found the milk to be adulterated, as it was below the prescribed standard. The Food Inspector filed the challan against the applicant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh. The applicant had pleaded guilty. After recording the evidence the applicant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. His appeal before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, has been dismissed. He has, therefore, filed the present revision-petition before this Court.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a rustic villager. He has wrongly been convicted on the basis of his admission of guilt to the charge framed and read-over to him. The applicant did not know the language of the charge. No opportunity was given to the applicant to think over on the admission of the guilt. The charge was not explained to him. He was not asked whether he was voluntarily admitting his guilt or he is under pressure before the Food Inspector. It is also submitted that the report of the Public Analyst, Bhopal clearly shows that the sample analysed by him, fat contained was 4. 9% which is 1. 5% more than the prescribed standard while the milk solid was 7. 1% i. e. 0. 9% below the prescribed standard. Looking to the report no offence against the applicant for adulteration of the milk could be made out. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the Food Inspector was not authorised to file the challan before getting sanction to file the challan against the applicant. According to the counsel for the applicant, the Food Inspector has no authority or jurisdiction of prosecution for offence under the Act except by, or with the consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf. In this case, the Food Inspector has failed to prove his authority. As such the trial is vitiated on that ground alone.