AMOLAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment dated 21 -8 -79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 26 -2 -77. The accused -petitioner was convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, or in default of payment of fine to further under go 3 months imprisonment.

(2.) IN this case it is not disputed that the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Food Inspector on 20 -8 -73 and sample of Til oil was taken by the Food Inspector Shri Shabbir Ahmed (PW 1), which was purchased by him. Form F -6 was given to the petitioner in respect of this transaction. The petitioner before signing the form (Ex. P 1) mentioned that the oil, the sample of which was taken was Ganpati Mark oil and the same was purchased from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur. On Ex.P3 also the same objection was taken by the petitioner and he wrote the same objection on it. Thus, in all the documents prepared by the Food Inspector the petitioner expressed that the goods sold by him were the products of M/s. Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur. It has not been disputed that the oil in question was adulterated. After obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk which was submitted by the PP (Perokar) of Municipal Council, Tonk. Necessary charge was framed against the accused -petitioner, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. Two witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The accused -petitioner himself appeared as a defence witness, and produced one more Manoharlal as DW 2 in support of his statement. After hearing arguments, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused -petititoner guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. An appeal against the order of conviction and sentence was tiled before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk but without any success. Hence this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Submitted that the complaint was not filed in the Court of C.J.M., Tonk by a person who was authorised by the Commissioner, Municipal Council. Sanction to prosecute the accused petitioner was specifically given in the name of Shri Shabbir Ahmed vide Ex. P 7, but the complaint was filed by the PP of the Municipal Council, Tonk. Such sort of complaint was not entertainable, because the PP was not competent to file the complaint, and thus the whole proceedings are vitiated because of this defect. It has been further contended that at the time when Shri Shabbir Ahmed inspected the shop and took the sample of oil, it was brought to his notice that the oil in question was purchased from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur, and a note was given on Exs.P 1 and P 3. Therefore the Food Inspector was duty bound to make an enquiry under Rule 9(i) of the Food Adulteration Rules.