VIMAL BHATIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dt. 12.02.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 11/2012, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 01.12.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No. 10/2010 has been dismissed. The trial Court vide order dt. 01.12.2011 has ordered for framing charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954' hereinafter).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Shri Revant Singh, Food Inspector, Jaisalmer had filed a complaint in the trial Court while alleging that on 16.06.2009, he had inspected a shop named and styled as M/s. Grihasti Departmental Store situated at Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer and purchased three bottles of mustard oil for the purpose of sending sample for testing. Proprietor of M/s. Grihasti Departmental Store has produced a purchase bill of mustard oil from dealer M/s. Shree Jee Agencies, Bhatia Market, Jaisalmer. It is alleged in the complaint that the sample of mustard oil was sent to the laboratory and as per the report of the laboratory, the same was found adulterated. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that despite repeated reminders issued to the dealer - firm M/s. Shree Jee Agencies, it has failed to produce the bill or voucher of the manufacturer firm to prove that the mustard oil was purchased by it from the manufacturer firm. In the complaint, the Food Inspector had made the proprietor of M/s. Grihasti Departmental Store and owner of dealership firm M/s. Shree Jee Agencies as accused.

(3.) Before the trial Court, in the precharge evidence, the statements of Food Inspector were recorded on 16.02.2011 and thereafter the trial Court heard the counsel for the accused -persons for the purpose of framing of charges. After hearing counsel for the accused -persons and the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has ordered for framing of charge against the accused -persons vide order dt. 01.12.2011.