ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Ashok Kumar having been convicted for offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by judgment dated 6-7- 83 passed by Shri A.K. Mishra, judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sausar in Cr1. C. No. 1190 of 82 and sentenced to six months RI together with fine of Rs. 1,000/- which conviction and sentence remain confirmed by judgment dated 18.10.83 passed by AddI. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Cr. A. No. 77/83, has approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under sections 397/40 1 of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) Prosecution case against the applicant is that on 9.4.81, he sold adulterated sago to the Food Inspector A.S. Shakya (P.W. 1), which on analysis by the Public Analyst was found to be not conforming to the prescribed standard. It was alleged that the said sago was purchased on payment of price vide Ex. P-2 in- the presence of witnesses and a Panchnama (Ex. P.4) prepared. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Jabalpur for analysis Report of the Public Analyst dated 22.4.81 (Ex. P-7) indicated that it had O.85% of ash and O.2% insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid as against O.4% and 0.1% respectively. After receipt of the report, a copy of the same was sent to the applicant on 22.6.81 vide Ex. P-S, acknowledgment of which is Ex. P-6. Thereafter, the applicant was put on trial as aforesaid. The defence of the applicant before the trial Court appears to be that no sample was purchased from his shop and that Exhibits P-I & P-2 do not bear his signatures. Curiously enough, be admitted having received the report of the Public Analyst and information that he was entitled to challenging the report under section 13 (2) of the Act. He also surprisingly admitted having signed Panchnama (Ex. P-4). The learned trial Judge, on consideration or oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the sample was adulterated. It was further held that it was purchased from the applicantTs shop. That is how, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced. While sentencing the applicant, the trial Jude felt that it was not a case where any leniency moulds be shown and, therefore, awarded the sentence as aforesaid. Before the lower appellate Court, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate, who tried the offence was not entitled to try it under section 16-A of the Act. It was also submitted that even under the Distribution memo issued by the D.J. the ibid Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case. The Court, no doubt, found that the learned trial judge was not authorised to try the case under section 16-A of the Act and yet relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Food Inspector, Mandsaur Nagar Palika v. Fakhru1 held that the trial was not vitiated. As regards absence of jurisdiction based on distribution memo, the learned Judge found that it was curable defect in view of section 465 Cr. P.C.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the applicant was not the manufacturer for the adulterated sago and had disclosed the name of the firm from which it was purchased, he could not have been prosecuted and punished because of lection 19 (2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the submission regarding want of jurisdiction in the learned Trial Judge. It was not a case where there was no Magistrate available in the District to try such a case, though no such Magistrate was available at Sausar. Under the circumstances, Sausar Magistrate could not have usurped jurisdiction and dealt with this case. It was also submitted that the Food Inspector was not authored to launch the prosecution, as required under section 20(l) of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings were vitiated. At the end, it is submitted that if this Court finds no justification for the aforesaid submission, it should consider those matters for purposes of sentence. Applicant claims that he has done nothing for which he is being punished. According to him, be sold sago in the same condition in which be purchased it and, therefore, a jail sentence is not deserved. It is now well-settled that the Act is a social measure intended to curb trading in human health in wider public Interest. It should, therefore, be the anxiety of this Court to secure the purpose and give effect to the provisions of the Act. This has been very succinctly and forcefully stated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Devendra Kumar2. According to the Supreme Court, Courts should not be too eager to quash on slander grounds the prosecutions for offences alleged to have been committed. Added to it is the fact that it is the revisional jurisdiction which has been invoked by the applicant. Main purpose of this Jurisdiction is to correct errors and ensure justice. In so doing, the revisional Court does not act as an appellate Court. This is, however not to lay that this Court would not look into the fact of the case, if they be necessary for ensuring justice. Keeping those legal limitations in mind the submissions or the learned counsel for the applicant may be examined.