DAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the remand of the case to the trial Magistrate to record afresh the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and then to proceed with the case therafter according to law.

(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that on July 23, 1981 a sample of cow's milk was purchased from the petitioner Daya Ram, which on analysis, was found to be adulterated inasmuch as the milk -solid not fat were found to be deficient to the extent of 9 per cent less than the minimum prescribed standard. The petitioner was tried and later convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) IN appeal, the Sessions Judge accepted the contention that the report of the Public Analyst pointing out the adulteration found by him, had not, been put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that omission to do so had resulted in serious prejudice to him. Having so held, he set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh decision after recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.