OM PARKASH GUPTA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the aid of this under section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Om Parkash Gupta of Patiala implores this Court to quash the proceedings and the complaint filed against him under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hence forth as the Act) which is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. A specific prayer for the quashing of the order dated May 10, 1976 by which the petitioner was charged for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Act, is also made.

(2.) THE allegation as contained in the complaint is, that the Food Inspector inspected the premises of Modi Spinning and weaving Mills, Patiala, on June 24, 1974, and found the petitioner (who is stated to be the Manager of the Mill) having in his possession about 23F Quintals of Cotton Seed Oil for sale, lying in a tack. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. of this oil on payment. The oil was converted in three equal parts into three bottles which were duly stoppered and sealed. As usual one part of the sample was handed over to the petitioner, the second part was transmitted to the Public Analyst for analysis and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. The report of the Public Analyst indicated some variation regarding the ingredients of the oil, inasmuch as some mineral oil (quantity not mentioned) was noticed and the unsaponifiable matter was found to be 2.5 percent against a maximum prescribed standard of 1.5 percent. The petitioner was therefore, proceeded against under the Act.

(3.) THE guilty have to be punished, but this can be done only under the process of law by observing the mandatory formalities and procedure, as prescribed by the relevant statute. The sacrosanctity attached to the maxim "Everyone is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty". Is not merely for the benefit of the accused but is more for the observance of the Court. A fair trial presupposes that a person accused of an offence is to be afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, not necessarily with a view to prove his absolute innocence but even for the purpose of bringing on record the dubiety of the prosecution allegations as the law confers upon him a right to claim the benefit of all doubts in the matter. The second cardinal principle, in the same context is, that the Court is not called upon to derive adverse conclusion with predisposed notions about the guilt of the accused. A persual of the various orders pissed by the trial Court,, to which reference has been made above, and particularly the order dated May 10, 1971, indicates that the learned Magistrate lost light of both their principles.