CHINTULAL Vs. ASHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Food Inspector, Damoh, was obstructed and assaulted while discharging his duties as a public servant at village Hindoria. On these fact" a charge sheet under section 353, 323, 506 and 341 I.P.C. was presented in the Court of Shri A. B. Toppo, Judicial Magistrate, First Class Damoh, giving rise to criminal case No. 147/183 (State of M.P. v. Asharam). For the same incident since the applicant was obstructed from taking the sample of milk for analysis by the public analyst, complaint against the non -applicant under section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration It (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was presented by the applicant in the Court of C.J.M. Damoh, who is specially empowered to try offences under section 16 of the Act by notification No. 3369 dated 11.10.77. It appears that the learned Magistrate besides framing charge under Section 332/506 I.P.C. mentioned in the challan papers, also framed charge under section 16 of the Act, although there was no mention of this offence in the challan papers. Vide judgment dated 26.3.85, non -applicant Aharam was acquitted of all the charges including under section 16 of the Act, which is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) IT was argued and could not be disputed that offences under the Act are triable by Magistrate specially empowered in that behalf by the State Govt. and that all the OM in the State are specially empowered for this purpose. It is thus, clear that the non -applicant was not challenged for any offence under the Act and the learned Magistrate was not specially empowered to try any such offence. That being the case, the framing of charge under Section 16 of the Act and non applicant's acquittal are manifestly illegal, being without jurisdiction.