ALLA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Shri Alla Ram s/o Shri Rikhi Ram has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashment of complaint No. 12 of 1990 and the impugned order dated 4.4.1992 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The facts of the case can be summarised in the following paras.

(2.) FOOD Inspector took a sample of the cow's milk from the petitioner on 20.7.1989. It was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and was analysed in on 7.8.1989. The milk was found to be adulterated being not in accordance with the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This report was received in the office of Local Health Authority on 9.8.1989. The Food Inspector filed criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.1.1990. The local Health Authority despatched a copy of the report by registered post to the accused on 22.1.1990 informing him of his right that he could get the second portion of the sample analysed from Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, within ten days of receipt of that letter. This letter was not received back. The petitioner did not exercise his right for analysis of the second sample. He appeared before the trial Court on 27.6.1990 and the case was adjourned for pre-charge evidence on 12.11.1990. After recording pre-charge evidence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot discharged the petitioner holding that the report of the Public. Analyst was supplied to the accused after the expiry of four months whereafter the sample of the milk was to be decomposed and did not remain fit for analysis. Therefore, the accused was prejudiced as he could not ask for sending the second sample for re-analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) SHRI Vinod Kataria, counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the revision of the State was not legally maintainable. The order of the learned C.J.M. would be deemed as the order of acquittal and not an order of discharge and against the order of acquittal only the appeal is maintainable in the High Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner in fact never raised plea before the Court of Sessions about the maintainability or otherwise of the revision filed by the State and at this juncture it may not be open for the petitioner to say the revision of the State in the Court of Session was not legally maintainable. The technicalities of law would not stand in the way in determining the real controversy as held in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1169.