RISHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision filed by Rishi Kumar and has been directed against the judgment dated 4.7.1991 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who allowed the appeal of Rishi Kumar but instead of acquitting him remanded the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction for holding a fresh trial in accordance with law.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- A criminal complaint under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by the State of Haryana against Rishi Kumar petitioner with the allegations that on 26.2.1983 Bhagwan Dass, the then Govt. Food Inspector, Sirsa had inspected the shop of the petitioner situated in Main Bazar, Ellenabad and the petitioner was found present at the time of the visit and he was in possession of 30 Kgs. of Haldi meant for public sale out of which the complainant after disclosing his identity and service of requisite notice had purchased 50 grams as sample against payment of Rs. 4.80. The sample was sent to the office of Public Analyst, Haryana, who vide report held that the Haldi contained insects and was damaged to the extent of 24.2 per cent against the maximum prescribed standard of 5 per cent by weight. The petitioner was earlier convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 29.7.1988, but the said judgment was set aside by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide his judgment dated 22.11.1988. After remand, the predecessor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 11.1.1989 served a notice of accusation on the petitioner for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Bhagwan Dass as PW-1 and Sham Sunder, Clerk from the office of Local Health Authority, Sirsa as PW-2. Independent witness Bharo Dhan was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the petitioner. Dr. A.K. Bar, who was accompanying the raiding party, was not examined on account of his death. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocence. When called upon to enter into defence, the petitioner did not lead any evidence. The learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 26.2.1990 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. The learned Magistrate while passing the order of sentence, also came to the conclusion as follows :-

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 4.7.1991, the present revision.