NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is criminal revision petition under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, against the judgment dated 13-12-1982 passed by Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1981 confirming the conviction and sentence against the petitioner under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar vide his judgment dated 26-2-1981 in Criminal Case No. 47 of 1981 and reduced the sentence from one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000.00 to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(2.) The facts so far as sale of common salt is concerned are not in dispute, Mr. Tibrewal learned counsel for the accused has concentrated on three fold submissions. Firstly, it was argued that the report of the Central Food Laboratory was received and the sample was sent and the proceedings in that respect were done with the abnormal delay and there has been violation of 13(2) (B) of the Food adulteration Act. It was then argued that in any case both in the charge as well as in examination this report of Director of Central Food Laboratory was never put to the accused and therefore the charge itself as have been found to be proved cannot be sustained Lastly it was argued that in any case the accused deserves to be dealt with seriously because he is not manufacturer of salt himself and the trial has taken too long a time and by this time more than a decade has passed in between and the accused also is old and infirm as he is suffering from hypertension and is more than 60 years of age.

(3.) All the three above contentions of Mr. Tibrewal were vehemently opposed by Mr. Kamal Nayan Shrimal, Public Prosecutor' According to him the provisions of 13(2) (B) are directory and not mandatory and there has been no non-compliance creating any prejudice to the accused. Mr. Shrimal then argued that the charge and the examination of the accused expressly mentions of adulteration of salt and type of adulteration is the same in the report of Public Analyst as well as Central Food Laboratory. According to him even if there is some omission or irregularity in the framing of the charge of the statement of the accused, section 465 Cr. P.C. cures it and no trial is vitiated unless prejudice is shown. Mr. Shrimal then argued that since it is a case of adulteration in salt which is of daily use for consumer and the adulteration of the food which is utilised by each and every house and human being in that are a every day it should not be lightly dealt with as these are cases crimes against the society and not individual.