STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order is dated 5th June, 1981 vide which the respondent was acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence on record to connect him with the commission of the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE sample was taken by Shri Balwan Singh. Government Food Inspector on 21st September, 1979 and the complaint is dated 2nd November, 1979 and was filed on the same day. The respondent put in appearance on 18th April, 1980 and was directed to furnish surety and bail bond. The case was then adjourned for evidence of the complainant on 22nd August, 1980 on which date the respondent was not persent but the trial Court condoned his absence and adjourned the case to 12th September, 1980 for the same purpose. The order of 2nd September, 1980 does not show whether any evidence was present or not. Orders of 2nd December, 1980 and 4th February, 1981 show that there was no evidence on behalf of the prosecution. It was only on 3rd April, 1981 that Shri Balwan Singh, G.F.I. was present and was examined as PW.1. The complainant Balwan Singh. who is the witness himself, closed his evidence for the purpose of charge. A prima facie case having been made out, the respondent was charged under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution was directed to produce its evidence on 5th June, 1981 and on that day. the accused was acquitted on the ground that Sh. Balwan Singh, Food Inspector had instituted this complaint and he is stated to have been transferred to Sonepat and in his place Shri Sant Lal, another Government Food Inspector had been posted and neither of them was present on that day. In this case Shri R.K. Sood, G.F.I. has given an affidavit that he was present in the Court on 5th June, 1981 and informed the Court that Sant Lal G.F.I. had been detained by the Chief Medical Officer on some urgent work and requested it to grant an opportunity to produce its evidence but the same was not accepted. In the food adulteration cases the acquittal of the accused is not to be done in such an easy way and that too on the very first day fixed for the examination of the prosecution evidence specially when a request is made for adjournment on the ground that Government Food Inspector had been detained by the Chief Medical Officer. The lower Court should have accepted this request and granted adjournment to the prosecution for producing its evidence. On this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We, therefore accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

(3.) AFTER setting aside the impugned order, the course open to this Court is to remand the case for retrial but the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that remand at this stage will cause injustice to the respondent as he has been in agony of prosecution for a very long time.