VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 15.1.1998 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/94, preferred against the judgment dated 4.3.1994, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 2726/1990.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that Food Inspector K.K. Shukla, on 3.3.1984 took a sample of 'Heeng' from the applicants on suspicion of it's being adulterated. After dividing it into three equal parts and following the procedure, he sent the sample to Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the sample of 'Heeng' to be adulterated, vide his report Ex. P -6. This report was sent to Local Health Authority, who after obtaining the requisite sanction, filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of Magistrate, on the accusation of the offence under section 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After recording the evidence, learned Magistrate found the applicants guilty of the offence and convicted them for the aforesaid offence. Applicant Gulab Chand Vijay Kumar was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and rest of other applicants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each. On appeal, learned II Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of Food Inspector found that the copy of the report of the analysis was said to have been sent by the Local Health Authority to the applicants (Vendors) along with noticed (Ex. P -11, P -12, P -13 and P -14) in Form No. 10, in compliance of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Prevention Food Adulteration Act. Food Inspector, K.K. Shukla, in his statement deposed that the said notices along with the report were sent by the Local Health Authority by post, but, in statement under section 313 of CrPC, applicants denied of having received any notice or report from the Local Health Authority according to the provisions of 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that after so many years, it would not be in the interest of justice to record the evidence of the prosecution witness afresh in respect of the proof of the notices and service of the report of the Public Analyst on the applicants. He submits that learned Appellate Court has committed il1egality in remanding the case for taking fresh evidence in order to fill up the lacuna found in the prosecution case. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Manohar Singh v. State of M.P. [1997 (II) MPWN 129] wherein under similar circumstances it was held that when accused had suffered agony of the trial for 14 years, case should be dropped instead of remanding it for taking fresh evidence.