GURUMUKH DAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 29-12-1989 passed in Cr. Revision No. 79/89 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, district Shahdol setting aside the acquittal judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria in Cr. Case No. 1083/84, decided on 3-2-69. By this impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the acquittal and remanded the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for its re-decision in accordance with law for the reasons discussed in the impugned order.

(2.) The circumstances in which this revision was taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge were like this that after the acquittal judgment by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Judge, Shahdol inspected the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and found gross irregularities in disposal of this case, finding that there was sufficient overwhelming material to convict the accused and no material to raise any doubt on any point against the prosecution. The accused had been prosecuted for contravention of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the 'P.F.A. Act') for having sold a sample of coloured JALEBI with impermissible colour to Food Inspector, Shri P. D. Khare in that area as far back as on 18-7-85. The one part of sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated in so far as prohibited colour was found in it. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, noticed defect in sampling, defect in the report of Public Analyst, defect in sending the sample to the Public Analyst, non-production of the postal receipt vide which the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and a host of other defects. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had also noticed that the samples were taken in polythene packet having JALEBI weighing 250 grms each. Three such packets were taken in possession as sample. This JALEBI was not put in any bottle as per the requirement of Rule 14 of the P.F.A. Rules. All three packets so taken were wrapped separately in paper and sealed with the seal of the Food Inspector. One such packet was sent to the Public Analyst. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found that this was violation of Rule 14 of the P.F.A. Rules. The samples should have been taken in clean, dry bottles, even if it was kept for sale in polythene packs.

(3.) The Sessions Judge, on his inspection of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on administrative side, found a gross mis-carriage of justice having been committed by the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without any basis and ignoring the entire evidence of procedure of sampling proved by the Food Inspector, on record. He, therefore, after taking cognizance, suo motu, finding that there was illegality in the trial resulting in gross injustice to the prosecution, marked over the case in revision proceedings to the Additional Sessions Judge who ultimately decided the same. The Additional Sessions Judge reversed the acquittal judgment in revisional proceedings by the impugned order and remanded the case back for its re-decision, finding that there was illegality resulting in violation of justice to prosecution. It was directed that case may be decided afresh. Each of the points of infirmity found by the trial Magistrate, was found to be illegally decided against facts as well as against law.