SOM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sample of Shakkar taken by the Food Inspector from the Kiryana shop of Som Dutt petitioner an 28-1-1986 at 1.40 p.m.was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated as it contained unpermitted orange acid coal tar dye. The trial Court tried the accused on charge for offences under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention or Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and after finding him guilty of the said charge, sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default of payment thereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months vide order dated 18-8-1988.

(2.) ON appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding that nonframing, of proper charge had resulted in prejudice to the accused petitioner, remanded the case for retrial after framing the fresh charge vide his order dated 7-11-1989.

(3.) THE law is well-settled that the trial of an accused person even without framing a charge or a defective charge itself is a mere irregularity and would not result in vitiating the trial unless prejudice has been caused to the accused due to this defect or irregularity. In the case in hand, Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, prohibits the use of even permitted coal tar dye in all food items other than mentioned in the Rule. Shakkar is not included in the food items figuring in Rule 29. Thus, by the necessary implication, Shakkar shall have to be treated as adulterated article of food-under clause (j) of section 2 (ia) of the Act, which defines "adulteration" and reads as under :-