SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point of law referred for our oppinion lies within a narrow compass. It pertains to the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The question posed being :

(2.) READ by itself, in the context of the relevant provisions of the Act, the short and simple answer must be that no occasion is provided for the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory to be incorporated in the complaint as originally filed by the Food Inspector founded upon the opinion of the Public Analyst, as in terms of Section 13 of the Act, the stage for seeking a report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory is subsequent to the filing of such complaint.

(3.) IT appears, however, that the point in issue emerged from a situation where adulteration in the sample of the article of food in question, as found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was different in nature from that as per the report of the Public Analyst. As the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory suprsedes that of the Public Analyst, It followed that if the prosecution of the person from whom the sample had been taken is to be launched on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, then such report must form part of the complaint of the local Health Authority and this may be done either by amending the original complaint to incorporate there in the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory or by the withdrawal of the original complaint and the filing of fresh complaint based upon such report of the Director, Central Food Laboratary. Whether such second, complaint would attract the bar of double jeopardy in terms of Article 23 of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would, of course, be a matter to be decided on particular facts and circumstances of the case.