JAMSHEDPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITE Vs. NIRANJAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been referred to Division Bench. A common question arising in all these matters is whether or not on the facts of the respective cases the legal presumption under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act could be taken in aid. In the criminal appeals such legal presumption has not been taken in aid but In the criminal revision it has been applied. Since the arguments in all these matters have been heard together and since the contentions are common, I proceed to decide all of them together by this judgment

(2.) In Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1968 the respondent had been punished under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 34 of 1954), for violating Section 7 of the Act by storing for sale adulterated turmeric. He was convicted by the trial court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal the appellate court acquitted the respondent because it found that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Act had not been complied with and consequently it could not be said with certainty that the sample of the turmeric which was analysed by the Chemical Analyst was the same one which had been collected from the respondent's shop. The argument on behalf of the State that the legal presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act should be taken in aid for maintaining the conviction was rejected, because according to the appellate court the facts did not warrant the aid to such a presumption.

(3.) In Criminal Appeal No. 20 of (1969 the punishment under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act was rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months for contravening Section 7 of the Act by storing adulterated Haldl sticks. The appellate court found that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 of the Rules under, the Act. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Sao v. State of Bihar. (1968 B. L. J. R. 308), the appellate court did not take aid of the legal presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and acquitted the respondent. In Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1969 the respondent was charged with offence under Section 7 and was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act for selling adulterated coconut oil. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the sample sent to the chemical analyst was the one which had been collected from the shop of the respondent and further there was gross irregularity in the chemical analyst's report because the quantity of coconut oil sent to the chemical analyst was below the required minimum. The complainant in all these three appeals is Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee which had preferred these appeals under Section 417 (3) of the Coda of Criminal Procedure. 1898.