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 6-7-1983 passed by Shri A.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sausar in Criminal Case No. 1190 of 1982 and sentenced to six months R.I. together with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 which conviction and sentence remain confirmed by judgment dated 18-10-198 3 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1983, has approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Prosecution case against the applicant is that on 9.4-1981, he sold adulterated sago to the Food Inspector A.S. Shakya (P.W. 1), which on analysis by 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 4 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 22-4-1981 (Ex. P-7) indicated that it had 0.85% of ash and 0.2% insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid as against 0.4% and 0.1% respectively. After receipt of the report, a copy of the same was sent to the applicant on 22.6.1981 vide Ex. P-5, acknowledgement 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-l and P-2 do not bear his signatures. Curiously, enough he admitted having received the report of the public analyst and information that he was entitled to challenge 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 of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the sample was adulterated. It was further held that it was purchased from the applicant's shop. That is how, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced. While sentencing the applicant, the trial Judge felt that it was not a case where any leniency should 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 District Judge, the said 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 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 Vs. Fakhru, 1979 M.P.L.J. Note 40 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 of 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 section 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 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 authorised to launch the prosecution, as required under section 20(1) 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, he sold sago in the same condition in which he 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 the 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 Vs. Devendra Kumar, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 545 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 say that this Court would not look into the facts of the case if they be necessary for ensuring justice. Keeping these legal limitations in mind, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant may be examined.