MAHAMDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected references by the learned Sessions Judge recommending that, the convictions and sentences of the accused persons under S. 13, Punjab Pure Food Act, should be set aside In one case Mahamda was the accused. In the other two cases the accused was the same person Chotoo. Mahamda was fined Rs. 30 and was directed to pay Rs. 6 as costs of analysis. The same sentence was passed upon Chotoo in one case. In the third case Chotoo was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40, and was ordered to pay Rs. 6 as costs of analysis. In each case the prosecution case was that Behari Lal Food Inspector took samples of milk from the accused persons. These samples were sent to the Public Analyst for examination. He reported that, the three samples of milk were adulterated. The two accused persons were therefore prosecuted in three separate cases under S. 13, Punjab Pure Food Act. In each case the learned Honorary Magistrate, First Class, who tried the case, wrote an order sentencing the accused after mentioning that, the accused had pleaded guilty. The accused persons filed revision applications against the orders of conviction. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that, the conviction is wrong in each case. He has therefore made these three connected references.

(2.) The learned Judge has given a number of reasons in support of his recommendation. Firstly, it has been pointed out that, the plea of the accused was not recorded specifically as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. We hive to gather the plea of the accused from the order containing the sentence. Secondly, the order merely mentions that, the accused admitted adulteration of water, and pleaded guilty. It must be remembered that, the prosecution was for alleged exposure of adulterated milk for sale. An admission that milk was adulterated does not amount to an admission that the milk had been exposed for sale. The term 'sale' as defined by the Punjab Pure Food Act is very wide. Still mere possession of an adulterated article will not amount to sale. Affidavits were filed before the learned Judge that, the accused never pleaded guilty. The learned Judge appears to be inclined to accept these affidavits.

(3.) Obviously the cases were not cried properly. The learned Public Prosecutor supports these references. I therefore accept the three references, set aside the convictions and sentences of Mahmada and Chotoo in the three cases under S. 13, Punjab Pure Food Act, and acquit them. If the fines have already been paid, they will be refunded. It is hoped that, the learned Honorary Magistrate will avoid the mistakes pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, and try cases in future after adopting the prescribed procedure. References accepted.