STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MULAKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, dated 15.4.1993, whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 13.9.1991, Food Inspector along with Dr. R.K. Jindal, had inspected the premises of accused respondent Mulakh Raj at about 1.40 p.m., at Mohali and found accused Mulakh Raj, having in his possession about 5 kilograms of khoya, for sale and after disclosing his identity, Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of khoya for Rs. 30/- against proper receipt. Before purchasing, the contents were made homogeneous and thereafter the sample was divided into three equal parts, after adding preservative therein and each sample was duly sealed in accordance with law. Thereafter, one part of the sealed along with memo in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, for analysis, while the two other parts of the sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, that the sample of khoya, was adulterated, complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, against the accused respondent. After the filing of the complaint, notice under Section 13 of the Act was given to the accused. Thereafter the accused was charged, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution led its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the sale of khoya in question and the shop from where the sample was taken and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, State of Punjab has filed the present appeal in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the State submitted before me that the learned Magistrate had erred in law in acquitting the accused on the ground that the accused respondent Mulakh Raj had no concern with the shop in question. It was submitted that even if no independent witness was associated, as required under Section 10(7) of the Act, still accused could not be acquitted of the charge framed against him. It was further submitted that the report of the Public Analyst was duly sent to accused respondent, as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, and as such accused respondent could not be acquitted on that ground.