CHATURBHUJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Chaturhbuj against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Faridabad, dated 10th February, 1984, by which the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was set aside in appeal but the case was remanded to the trial Court for retrial.

(2.) THE Government Food Inspector Ram Lal Chawla inspected the premises of the petitioner on 7th January, 1981, at 2.20 P.M. and he found that the petitioner had displayed 7 Kg of Bura for sale in a thal. The Food Inspector took a sample of 750 grams out of the Bura in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst who vide his report Exhibit P.D. reported that it contained Sulphr dioxide more than the maximum prescribed standard. On receipt of this report, the Food Inspector launched a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of teh Sub-Divisional Judical Magistrate, Palwal. The trial Court on appraisal of the evidence, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(i)(a) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Against this decision, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The appellate Court found that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D., had not been put to the petitioner when he was examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner was prejudiced as no opportunity had been granted to him to offer any explanation with regard to this report. In the wake of this finding, the order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner was set aside and the case was demanded for retrial with the direction that the statement of the petitioner under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, should be recorded afresh and he should be granted reasonable opportunity to lead defence evidence.

(3.) THE Supreme Court Judgment was relied upon in Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Om Prakash, 1969 P.L.R. 793. In this case the Food Inspector had taken a sample of ghee which on analysis was found to be sub standard. However, the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, had not been put to the accused in his statement. The Division Bench held that prejudice to the accused resulting from the failure of the trial Court to examine him with regard to the said report vitiated that trial. Then the question arose whether a retrial should be ordered. The Court observed that ordinarily on the aforesaid finding a retrial would have been necessitated but in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment an order of retrial would not have met the ends of justice because the accused had already faced trial for a period of about 3-1/2 years. It was observed that the proceedings having gone one for more than 3-1/2 years during which period the accused had suffered from suspense, it would not be conducive to justice if a retrial is ordered resulting in the proceedings starting afresh.