RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJJAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur under his judgment dated April 18, 1984 dismissed the appeal of the accused -petitioner both in respect of his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) as well as his sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - or in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said conviction was recorded and sentence was inflicted on the accused petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur under his judgment dated June 10, 1983.

(2.) HARI Dutt Sharma PW 1 was the Food Inspector, Bharatpur on May 7, 1981. On that day he saw that the accused -petitioner was carrying milk for the purposes of sale and near Dak bungalow, Bharatpur, he (Hari Dutt Sharma) introduced himself to the accused -petitioner and disclosed his identity as Food Inspector and purchased 660 ml. milk after paying its price. The sample was divided in three equal parts and was kept in three clean bottles and 18 drops of formaline was mixed in each bottle and they were sealed and were sent to local Health Officer for analysis. The sample reached to the Public Analyst on May 7, 1981, i.e., the same day it was taken from the accused petitioner. It was analysed by the Public Analyst and as per his report dated May 9, 1981 he found as under:

(3.) I am of the opinion that an offence under Section 16(7) of the Act by virtue of Section 16A has to be tried summarily, but in case a Magistrate in this case the Chief Judicial Magistrate who has jurisdiction to try the cases summarily by virtue of authorisation under Section 16A of the Act in that behalf, does not try the case summarily and does not afford any opportunity of hearing as provided under Second proviso of Section 16A of the Act and even does not record an order that it would be undesirable to try the case summarily, the trial cannot be held to be vitiated. It is necessary that the accused must show that as a result thereof failure of justice has been occasioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, as already stated earlier could not show that there has been any failure of justice, more so when the procedure of the trial of warrant cases is more beneficial to the accused.