MADAN MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried for an offence u/s 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur and was convicted of the said charge. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo S. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S. I. for one month. Aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. THE appeal was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, who dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 28. 2. 1984.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that Shri Hari Shanker, Food Inspector, Udaipur went to the shop of petitioner on 22. 12. 78 at about 8 a. m. The Petitioner was present at the shop situated at Kotiwada, Udaipur. One bucket containing 5 Kilogrammes of milk was kept in the shop. Food Inspector suspected milk to be adulterated and, therefore, requested the petitioner to make available a sample of milk on payment. The petitioner declined to give a sample and when Hari Shanker wanted to take a sample, the petitioner pushed the bucket containing the milk, with the result that the milk spilled on the ground. Thus the Food Inspector was prevented from taking a sample of milk from the petitioner.

(3.) IN criminal cases where serious penalty consequences ensue, prosecutions have to be conducted strictly in accordance with law. A purported authority which has not been proved cannot be of no avail to the prosecution. Moreover, as I have demonstrated the purported authority in this case does not authorise the Public Prosecutor or the Asstt. Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution, either by designation or by name. Therefore, I am of the view that the authority filed in this case by Hari Shanker for prosecution of petitioner is not an valid authority in favour of Public Prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor, and the prosecution/conviction on the basis of such a complaint cannot be sustained.