JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9.3.2006 and the order dated 13.3.2006 were set aside and the case was sent back to the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for fresh disposal according to law after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. afresh by putting the contents of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused and then he shall be afforded an opportunity to lead defence, if any.

(2.) COMPLAINT under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(for short the 'PFA Act') punishable under Section 16(1)(A)(i) of the PFA Act was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act and in default of making payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that once the report of Public Analyst was not put to the accused while examining under Section 313 Cr. PC., a material prejudice was caused to the accused and, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted of the charge. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and another, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1400 of 1988 decided on 13.1.1989 (1990 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 22).