NAGARPALIKA, PALI Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Pali with a recommendation that the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, dated 22nd Dec., 1973, convicting Atma Ram accused, under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, for retrial according to law after reconstructing the case file, which is reported to have been missing.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are mentioned in para No. 3 of the reference order and I need not reproduce them in detail here. Suffice it to say, that on 12-7-73, the Food Inspector, Pali, went to the shop of Atma Ram and purchased a sample of til oil, which was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in a dry and clean bottle, which was duly corked, sealed and packed. One bottle containing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who, after examination, opined that it did not conform to the standard of purity prescribed *for til oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Upon receipt of the result of the analysis, the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of Atma Ram and, eventually, filed a complaint against him in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, under Sec. 7/16 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate straightaway framed a charge against Atma Ram for the aforesaid offence. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded guilty. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then recorded the statement of the accused under Sec. 342, old Cr. P.C. without hearing the complainant and without taking all such evidence, as may be produced in support of the case. Atma Ram admitted his guilt in his statement also. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty and convicted the accused upon it. As the sentence passed against the accused was a fine of Rs. 100.00 only, the Municipal Board, Pali, filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, for enhancement of the sentence under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge heard the revision petition and made this reference.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and heard Mr. I.C. Maloo for Atma Ram and Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor. No body has appeared on behalf of the Municipal Board, Pali.