ANANDILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted for offence under S. 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Nagar Nigam) Ujjain in Cri. Case No. 1190/80 by order dated 21.2.87. The said order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Ujjain by his order dated 18.6.90 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 39/87. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision application.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in short is that on 29.5.80, the Food Inspector, during the course of checking found the petitioner carrying 10 litres of milk kept in a container for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk for analysis. The milk so purchased was divided into three parts and according to the prosecution after following the requirement of law the sample was sent to public analyst for his report, which was found to be adulterated by the public analyst. The two Courts below have concurrently held the petitioner guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the Municipal Corporation submitted that as the trial has been vitiated because of incompetence of the learned Magistrate, the matter may be remanded back for fresh trial by a competent Court. I am afraid, this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any substance. The occurrence has taken place as back as on 29.5.80 and it will not be proper exercise of discretion to direct for retrial of the petitioner after a lapse of near about 15 years. I reject this prayer of the respondents. Having held that the trial of the petitioner has been vitiated because of incompetence of the learned trial Magistrate, I have no option than to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner.