STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government Food Inspector Kangra at Dharamsala filed a complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the respondents Sarvshri Kehar Singh and Ram Singh in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra. The complaint was filed on 11 -2 -1981 on which date the learned Magistrate summoned both the respondents vide his cryptic order reading. "11 -2 -81 Present: -Sh. Bidhi Chand Food inspector for the State. It be registered/Accused be summoned for 5 -3 -81. The complaint was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dharamsala in pursuance of the order dated 2 -5 -1981 recorded by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, reading as under : - "2 -5 -81 Present ; -Shri Bidhi Chand Food Inspector for the State. Accused Kehar Singh & Ram Singh in person. One of the accused named Kehar Singh is a juvenile offender of the age of 14 years. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to try this accused Kehar Singh under Section 27 of the Cr. P. C. Accordingly the case is submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala for favour of trial. Accused persons are directed to put in appearnce before the learned C. J. M. Dharamsala on 26 -6 -1981. Case file be sent immediately to the learned C, J. M, Dharamsala, Announced, 2 -5 -1981. After such transfer, the respondents put in appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the first time on 21 -8 -1 81 when the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order : - "21 -8 -81 Present : -Accused on bail with Csl. He wants to contest the case. He is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ - with one surety in the like amount. The bail bond has been furnished. The same has been attested & accepted by me. For prosecution evidence to come up on 25 -9 -81. Sd/ - C. J. M." Three prosecution witnesses were summoned for 25 -9 -1981 in terms of the above order of 21 -8 -1981. As per report appearing on the record, all these P.Ws. were served. On 25 -9 -1981 however, the Chief Judicial Magistrate without recording the statements of the complainant or any of the prosecution witness summoned by him, proceeded to record the statements of the respondents after recording the following order : - "25 -9 -81 Present : - Both the ace. on bail. Accused Kehar Singh intends to confess his guilt to the offence His statement be recorded. Sd/ - C. J. M." After this the statements of both the respondents were recorded the English transliterations of which are as under : - "Statement of Kehar Singh, accused, aged 14 years. Without Oath. Stated that I plead guilty to the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and place myself at the mercy of the court. I had carried the aforesaid milk of my own accord. My father named Ram Singh, accused No. 2 had no hand whatsoever in this offence. Since I am a minor and adulteration in the milk is of negligible margin so I may be pardoned. I shall never repeat such an act m future and shall live like a good citizen. "Statement of Ram Singh s/o Sh. Rasila, aged 40 years, accused Without Oath. I do not know as to when and for what purpose Kehar Singh had carried the milk. Neither I had sent him nor have any knowledge in this regard. - On the basis of the aforesaid statements of the respondents the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 25 -9 -1981 acquitted Ram Singh respondent. The other respondent Kehar Singh was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -

(2.) It appears that this order dated 25 -9 -1981 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the notice of my Lord the Chief Justice who expressed the view that the matter required interference on the judicial side by way of exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. My Lord the Chief Justice therefore -exercise of his powers of revision suo moto issued notices to the respondents to show cause why order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 25 -9 -1981 be not revised. This is how Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1981 came to be registered in this Court.

(3.) The State has also after obtaining leave of this Court filed an appeal against the aforesaid order in so far as it operates to acquit Ram Singh respondent. The appeal of the State is registered as Criminal Appeal No 11 of 1982. This order shall dispose of both the Revision as also the Appeal mentioned above.