MURLIDHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sec. 16(1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act before its amendment and he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, which was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by his order dated 20-11-79.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case was conducted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who had no authority to conduct the case, so the trial is vitiated. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court-State of Rajasthan Vs. Nagjiram in which case, reference was made to the earlier decision of this Court in Criminal Appeals No. 401/77 and 403/77 State of Rajasthan Vs. Jai Narain and Sohanlal, 1984 RLW 161, decided on Aug. 9, 1983. It was held in that case that the presentation of the complaint and conduct of the case by the P P. is bad in law and trial stands vitiated arid no conviction can be recorded on the basis of such a trial; The order-sheet of this case also shows that the case was conducted by the Public Prosecutor, who had no authority to conduct the case. The trial so conducted, is vitiated and no trial can be recorded on that basis, In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, this revision deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is discharged. Revision Allowed.