RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed for expunging the remarks made against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1981 on September 12, 1983.

(2.) PETITIONER in his capacity as Food Inspector, took sample of milk from one Shanker Teli resident of Surajpole, Banswara on October 12, 1981 and suspecting it to be adulterated proceeded with under the Food Adulteration Act. The sample was found to be adulterated by the Chemical Examiner and Shanker Teli was tried for the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). During the course of trial it was found that the bottle containing the sample was not properly sealed and it was possible for any one to remove the seal and change the sample and place the seal in the same manner Ram Swaroop, the Food Inspector, who had sealed the samples in that case, in his cross -examination was confronted with the position of the seal. The Court came to the conclusion that the Food Inspector has not properly discharged his duties and in case he is vested with the powers of taking the sample, it would be futile because he was not following the proper procedure of affixing the seals on the bottles of the samples. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated September 12,1983 acquitted the accused Shanker of the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Act and observed that the petitioner Food Inspector was negligent in as much as he has not sealed the samples in accordance with Rule 16 of the Food Adulteration Rule [the Rules' hereinafter] and observed that the Food Inspector has not worked properly in the serious offence of the Food Adulteration and in case such a person is vested with the powers to take samples it would be useless because he was working in contravention of the Rules and has given false statement. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the copy of the judgment maybe sent to the C.M. and H.O., Banswara.

(3.) THE perusal of the statement in that trial shows that he has not taken care to seal the sample in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules. He has admitted his mistake in cross -examination. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred the certain authorities which I would just discuss. To substantiate its case that Court should be modest in passing disparaging remarks against the officials for certain acts in discharge of their duties because many a times officials do not have opportunity to explain their point of view.