ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohtak, dated 16.7.1987 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and set aside the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded back the case to the trial Court for fresh decision after sending the second part of sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for test in accordance with law. He, however, observed that the right of the appellant (Present petitioner) to have the sample sent to the Director is unqualified and it would be for the Director to say whether the sample was or was not fit for analysis and that if it was not, whether the delay for sending it to him was attributable to the laches of the appellant. He also observed that it will then be for the trial Court to see what value it would attach to the Director's report.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be noticed. On 18.6.1984 at about 2.50 P.M., Shri Sube Singh, G.F.I. alongwith Dr. S.K. Wadhwa and one independent witness Ram Nath inspected the premises of the present petitioner situated at old bus stand, Jhajjar and found the appellant exposing for about 2-1/2 kgs. of unindicated milk contained in a patila. The G.F.I. took sample of the said milk for the purposes of analysis on payment of Rs. 3/- and put it into three dry and clean bottles equally for purposes of examination. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis and report. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the L.H.A. forwarded a copy of the same to the G.F.I. for lodging a complaint and accordingly a complaint was lodged on 28.7.1984. The L.H.A. was informed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) DURING arguments before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the only argument advanced by the petitioner-appellant was that the accused had been deprived of his valuable right of getting the second part of the sample analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory as enumerated under Section 13(2) of the Act as his application made thereunder had been rejected by the learned Magistrate. It appears the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the authority of cases cited at the bar upheld the contention of the petitioner-appellant and held that the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner-appellant under Section 13(2) of the Act only on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case back to the trial Court for fresh decision after sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for test in accordance with law.