MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR Vs. RAMESHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave under sec. 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code filed by the Municipal Council, Jaipur, challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent Rameshwarlal passed by the Municipal Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Jaipur.

(2.) RESPONDENT Rameshwarlal was prosecuted by the Municipal Council under sec. 7 read with sec. 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint was filed against the respondent on 12th December, 1963. It appears from the record that the statement of the Food Inspector T. N. Saxena was recorded by the trial court but thereafter the said officer, who had signed the complaint on behalf of the Municipal Council, did not appear before the court. On 2nd August, 1965, the complainant filed an application before the court that the Public Analyst may be summoned to be examined by the court, but the application was objected by the accused. The court passed an order that a copy of the application be given to the counsel for the accused and then a date was fixed to hear the arguments on that application. It so appears that the application was never pressed before the court thereafter. On the 12th October, 1965, the case came up before the court to record the statement of the prosecution witness Abdul Wahid but as soon as the court started recording the statement of the witness, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the accused that his client should be acquitted because the complainant, namely, the Food Inspector T. N. Saxena was absent. The learned Magistrate stopped recording the statement of the witness and adjourned the case for the next day to hear the arguments of the parties on this objection. Next day, somehow the arguments could not be heard and, therefore, the parties addressed their arguments on the objection raised by learned counsel for the accused on 14th of October, 1965. It may be mentioned that on that day also T. N. Saxena was not present in the court and the Parokar of the Municipal Council could not give any reason for the absence of the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent on the ground that the first portion of sec. 247 Criminal Procedure Code contains a mandate that the accused shall be acquitted if the complainant was absent and the direction given in the latter part of the section can be exercised by the court only when the complainant or his counsel could satisfy the court that there were good grounds for the complainant not to attend the court on a particular date. The Municipal Council has preferred an appeal against this order of the learned Magistrate.