RAJNIKANT Vs. V K YATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-2-2005 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 366/03 whereby the judgment dated 29-8-2003 passed by CJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 3156/89, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 7 (ii) read with Section 16 ( -A) (i)of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'an Act') and was sentenced for a period of one year with fine of rs. 1,000/- was maintained, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioners were prosecuted by filing a complaint by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Act, wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 1 V. K. Yati is the Food Inspector, whose jurisdiction is Indore and Ujjain District. It was alleged that on 4-4-1989 shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by him. At the time of inspection it was found that petitioner No. 1 is having a stock of baby food, toffee and biscuit etc. , which is being stored by the petitioner No. 1 for sale. It was alleged that on that date respondent No. 1 took the sample of Cerelac Wheat Baby Food from petitioner no. 1 in three sealed boxes and after payment of price one of the sealed box was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. Further case of the prosecution was that the Public Analyst submitted the report in which it was found that the contents does not confirm the level. It was alleged that since the Cerelac Wheat Baby food, which was purchased by the respondent No. 1 from petitioner No. 1 was manufactured by petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner No. 2 is the nominee, therefore, all the three petitioners has committed an offence, which is punishable under the Act. It was alleged that after notice and also after the trial petitioners be convicted and be awarded sentence. Upon filing of the complaint cognizance was taken by the learned Trial Court. After notice to the petitioners and also after framing of charges the case was fixed for recording evidence. After recording of evidence learned Trial Court found that respondents has proved that petitioner No. 1 was possessing the Cerelac Wheat Baby Food, which was not up to the level, hence the petitioners have committed an offence, which is punishable under the Act and awarded sentence of one year to each of the petitioners along with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court an appeal was filed by the respondents. After hearing the parties learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioners argued at length and submits that learned Courts below committed error in passing the impugned judgment which suffers with illegality, irregularity and impropriety as the conviction is improper based upon gross mis-appreciation of the evidence. It is submitted that there are number of illegalities and irregularities, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Courts below deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that so far as petitioner No. 1 Rajnikant from whose custody the packets was purchased is concerned, was containing the warranty, which is evident from the bill (Exh. P-15 ). It is submitted that since there was warranty given by petitioner No. 3 and the food articles were purchased were sealed by petitioner No. 2, therefore, petitioner No. 1 cannot be held liable for the offence in any manner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent no. 1 on the basis of authority of Exh. P-13, whereby the respondent No. 1 was authorised to file the prosecution against the petitioners. It is submitted that sanction order (Exh. P-13) shows that neither the name of the substance nor the manner whether the article was adulterated or misbranded or what was the defect found has been mentioned, hence, the whole prosecution deserves to be quashed. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Chand Kanoongo Vs. State of M. P. , reported in 2003 (1) FAC 283, wherein this Court after placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Bhairav Singh Vs. State of M. P. , reported in 1998 (II) MPWN SN 98, has held that absence of material in the sanction order showing as to what was adulterated as per report of Analyst and what material was perused for granting sanction would vitiate whole trial because requirement of sanction for prosecution as per Section 20 of the Act is not satisfied.