RAMZANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. pe-tition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.6.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk, in revi-sion No.6/2006, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 7.7.2005, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, in criminal case Nc.965/2001, directing framingof the charge for the offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the Food Inspector took a sample of Ice-cream from M/s Jai Shankar Ice-cream Factory. Tonk Road, Newai on 23.6.2001. It is alleged that the sample was taken after mak-ing payment of the cost to the petitioner who was in possession of the factory in question. The sample was forwarded to the concerned public analyst for analysis, from where, a report was received that the sample was adulterated The Food Inspector posted an intimation regarding adulterated sample to the accused and admit-tedly, the report of the public analyst was sent to M/s Bajrang Ice-cream Factory, Newai care of Ramzani s/o. Akbar Ali, owner of the factory. The said envelope was refused by the accused with the observation that the firm of the peti-tioner was not in the name of M/s Bajrang Ice-cream Factory. Thereafter, a complaint was sub-mitted and the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The accused- petitioner challenged the order framing charge by way of a revision and the revisional court also dismissed the same ob-serving that since the envelope bears the name of the petitioner as the owner of the factory, there-fore, the intimation under Section 13(2) of PFA Act would be deemed to have been received by the petitioner.. Hence, the petitioner has ap-proached this Court by way of this misc. peti-tion.

(3.) Assailing the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is undisputedly, the owner of M/s Jai Shankar Ice-cream Factory and as such, he was absolutely right in refusing the envelope which was addressed to M/s Bajarang Ice-cream Fac-tory. He has further contended that since there is a total violation of the right of the accused to challenge the report of the public analyst by send-ing the second sample for reanalysis to the Cen-tral Food Laboratory, therefore, the order fram-ing charge could not be sustained.