STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. AMBALAL PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 417 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, by State of Madhya Pradesh from the appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua (in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1964) setting aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the sentence (in view of a previous conviction) of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/-with further rigorous imprisonment in default of six months, recorded by the First Class Magistrate of Thandla, in Criminal Case No. 519 of 1963. Actually, the Sessions Court has, after thus setting aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the case for a retrial in accordance with certain directions set out in its judgment.

(2.) THE allegations that the respondent was offering to sell milk, had actually sold a sample to the Food Inspector, and that the sample sent for analysis in the prescribed manner was found to be below standard and to be adulterated with water, were all admitted by the respondent who stated in his examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. Yes. I did add water to the milk which I was selling to my customers and a portion of which I sold to the Food Inspector. I plead guilty: but I am a poor cultivator. Similarly the factum of earlier conviction on 4-2-1963 for a similar offence was proved by the exhibition of a copy of that judgment and a confronting of the accused which also he admitted:

(3.) HOWEVER, in this appeal a number of points (all unrelated to merits) have been urged on behalf of the respondent why this Court should not interfere in appeal and should let the order of the Sessions Court take effect. The more important of these grounds are firstly, that in view of the acquittal by the--Sessions Court being incomplete or provisional, no appeal under Section 417, Cr. p. C. is competent; and the appropriate course of the aggrieved party is an application in revision, secondly, that as the prosecution, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is one under Section 190 (1) (a) and not under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. the Government is not competent to file an appeal under Section 417 (1), Cr. P. C. the local authority or the Food Inspector may seek special leave under Section 417 (3), Cr. P. C. The argument in other words is that these two sub-sections are mutually exclusive. Thirdly, that apart from other errors, it is urged, the trial Court had contravened the provisions of Sections 221 (7), 255-A and 256, Cr. P. C. As these do not seem to have been fully examined by any of the High Courts, it would be convenient to deal with them at some length.