NIHAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30 -1 -1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Kutubuddin Khan Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner on 18 -12 -1676 and he took the sample of Til Oil weighing 375 Grams for Rs. 3.00 from Nihal Chand accused petitioner. After observing necessary formalities in the presence of motbir, the sample was sealed and sent to the Public Analyst, as is required tinder the Food Adulteration Act. Ex. P 5 report was received from the Public Analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated. Necessary sanction for filing the complaint was obtained vide Ex P 6, which was given if favour of Shri Kutubuddin Food Inspector. A complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the APP of the Court on 22 -4 -1977. The case was subsequently conducted by the APP of the Court. After completing the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was partly accepted. Hence the revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 30 -1 -1980.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment of this court dated 9 -1 -1986, and am of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision of this court, as well as by the decision taken in the case Dalia v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Revision No. 159/78) decided on 29 -11 -1982 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, and State of Rajasthan v. Jainarain and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal 1984 RCC 28. In the said decision, it has been held that where a complaint under the Food Adulteration Act is filed by an unauthorized person, the trial stands vitiated and no conviction can be recorded on such a trial. In these circumstances, the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner were not according to law and as such the trial is vitiated, and the conviction based on such a trial can be bad in law.