MANSHARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, vide his order dated 18-7-1981, has framed charge against accused-applicant Mansharam under Sec. 16(1)(a) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. By this revision petition the accused respondent prays that the charge as also the proceedings in the criminal case be quashed being without jurisdiction. He also prays that the petition filed by him be treated alternatively to be one under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The Food Inspector had taken a sample of ground-nut oil from the Kirana Shop of the accused applicant on 16-10-1974. On one of the parts of the said sample having been sent for analysis, it was found by the Public Analyst vide his report dated 19-11-1974 that the same conformed to the prescribed standard. Thereafter, the Food Inspector made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1-1-1975 to the effect that the part of the sample produced by him be sent for a certificate to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. On this application, without issuing any notice to the accused applicant, and behind his back, the sample produced by the Food Inspector was ordered to be sent by the Court to the Director. The Director submitted his certificate after a lapse of about more than three years on 27-5-1978. According to the said certificate, the part of the sample conformed to the prescribed standard in respect of all tests excepting one. There was marginal non-conformation in respect of test relating to 'Free fatty acid as oilic acid'. After the said certificate was received by the Court, the accused applicant made objection in the Court in pursuance of summon received by him. The court recorded evidence before charge on 25-6-1981. Thereafter, rejecting the objection raised by the accused applicant that the proceedings were without jurisdiction, the court has framed charge under S. 16(1) (a) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against him on 18-7-1981.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances stated above, the charge framed against the accused applicant, as also the entire proceedings in the criminal case are liable to be quashed.