JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been referred to a Division Bench by I. P. Rao, J., doubting the correctness of the view taken by N. P. Singh, J, in Cr. Rev. No. 146 of 1990. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate representingthe State.

(2.) These revision petitions arise out of separate prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') in Sagar and Jabalpur districts respectively. The trial Courts in the two cases convicted and sentenced the accused and the convictions and sentences were upheld by the appellate Court. The accused thereupon filed the revision petitions.

(3.) Section 16-A incorporated in the Act by Amendment Act No. 34 of 1976 with effect from 1st April 1976 requires that all offences under Section 16(1) shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall as far as may be, apply to such trial. In Cr. Rev. No. 236 of 1994, the trial was held by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori, a Tehsil Headquarters. In Cr. Rev. No. 629 of 1994, the trial was held by one of the Judicial Magistrates of the First Class at Jabalpur, a district headquarters. By notification No. 3360 dated 11-10-1977, the State Government under S. 16A of the Act empowered Chief Judicial Magistrates and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates of all Revenue districts and senior-most presiding officers of Courts of Judicial Magistrates of First Class at Tahsil Headquarters, not being also head-quarters of revenue district, to try all offences under Section 16 (1) of the Act in summary way. Deori in Sagar district is a tahsil head-quarter. It is not known if the Magistrate who tried the case was the senior most judicial Magistrate of the first class. The Magistrate who tried the Jabalpur case, not being a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Jabalpur being a district headquarter, was not empowered under the notification to try cases under Section 16 (1) in a summary way. In these two cases, the respective Magistrates did not try the case summarily but tried the cases as warrant cases. In a similar case in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1990, it was held that trying the case adopting warrant procedure constituted violation of Section 16-A of the Act and on account of the irregularity, the conviction and sentences were held to be vitiated. Rao, J. in the reference order has taken the view that trial cannot be regarded as vitiated as long as there has been no failure of justice. It is this difference of opinion which has led to the references.