PANKAJ RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 13.7.1994 in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1992. The accused petitioner was challaned for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, a sample of Maida was taken from the shop of the petitioner and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found that the sample contained fourteen living insects (Larves). The learned Magistrate felt that the presence of the living insects in the Maida does not amount to adulteration of food stuff and does not make it unfit for human consumption and resultantly discharged the accused. The State filed the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who by his impugned order directed the trial Magistrate to frame charge against the accused and proceed according to law. Challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

(3.) SOME authorities have been cited before me but in all those cases, the entire evidence has been adduced after framing of the charge and the finding has also been recorded. As no evidence is recorded in this case after framing of the charge, I do not think those decisions cited before me are of any use in deciding whether the Maida in question is adulterated. I do not, therefore, find any ground warranting interference in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.