KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Kumar petitioner has been convicted under S 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and sentenced to nine months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the trial Court. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, has maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. Hence, this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the case. The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On July 20, 1979, Sher Singh, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. N. K. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Bhiwani, went to the business premises of the petitioner in Bhiwani Town and found him keeping 40 Kulfis in a pitcher for public sale. The Government Food Inspector purchased 900 gms of Kulfi from the petitioner for analysis. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated and on its basis a charge was framed against him by the trial Court. It is said that when the evidence of the food Inspector and the Doctor were recorded, the petitioner moved an application that the second sample be sent to the Central food Laboratory. The application was allowed by the trial Court. Vide reports Ex. PH of the Central Food Laboratory, that sample was also found to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate relied on the prosecution evidence and found the petitioner guilty of the said offence. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noted above.

(3.) I find no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The effect of failure of the Court to bring to the notice of the accused inculpatory material appearing against him itself will not render the conviction bad. The accused has to show that by such omission of the Court, he has been prejudiced which has resulted in consequent miscarriage to justice. Let us see whether the defect, if the omission is at all to be considered as a defect, has occasioned and caused any prejudice to the accused. It is not disputed that the petitioner was represented by a Lawyer throughout the trial and the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner; he cannot now take up the plea that he was prejudiced for not putting any relevant question to him and for not fashioning the question desirable by him. In my view, the material facts were brought to the notice of the petitioner and there was no occasion for him to complain that he had been, in any way, prejudiced in explaining the prosecution case affecting him. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the petitioner suffered any injustice for this reason. The objection raised before me seems to me most technical and flimsy. The defect could not have possibly vitiated the conviction of the petitioner. In this view I am fortified by a Supreme Court decision in Shivaji Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 S. C. C. 793. It is needless to refer to the Supreme Court decision in Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda's case (supra) as the facts therein are altogether different and the ratio therein is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case.