BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, was convicted under section 16 (1) read with section 2 (1) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned trial court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- Imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also awarded. According to the prosecution case, sample of ajowan was seized from the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. The Public Analyst to whom one part of the sample was sent for analysis, found it to be adulterated. It is not necessary to refer to the data given by him as the petitioner exercised his right under section 13(2) of the Act and got the second part of the sample analysed of the Director of Central Food laboratory who reported that the sample contained inorganic extraneous matter 5.1 per cent. organic extraneous matter 2.6 per cent, insect damaged grains 0.2 per cent and thus the sample was adulterated.

(2.) AGAINST his conviction, the present petitioner filed an appeal which was heared by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Before him it was inter alia argued on behalf of the petitioner that the examination of the accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, was defective inasmuch as the contents of the report of Central Food Laboratory had not been put to him and thus he had been prejudiced. Reliance was placed upon Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana, 1982(2) P. F. A. Cases 331. That contention of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate Court. The appeal was accordingly accepted and his conviction and sentence are set aside but the case was remanded to the trial court for re-trial according to law in view of the observations made in that order. Feeling aggrieved of that order, the convict has filed this revision petition.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that at earlier stage the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared and had argued that the sample of food article which was primary food could not be treated as adulterated in view of the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as State of Haryana v. Rama Nand, 1982 P.L.R. 649. As I did not agree with those observations, I referred the case, alongwith two other cases, to a large Bench but another Division Bench, which heard the reference held that the Single Bench was bound by judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Rama Nand's case (supra). Vide my judgment of today's date in Criminal Revision No. 991 of 1983 titled Shambu Dial v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 44 (P&H) : following certain full Bench and Division Bench judgments of this court, which had been rendered after Rama Nand's case (supra), it has been held that it was for the accused to show that adulterants were present in the sample beyond the prescribed limits of variability due to natural causes or beyond the control of human agency and in the absence of that evidence the accused was not entitled to acquittal on the basis of the observations made in Rama Nand's case (supra).