MANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 21, 1975 PW. 1 Laxmi Narain, Food Inspector purchased for analysis the sample cow-milk from the petitioner at his business premises being run in the name of 'Jain Dairy', Madar Gate, Ajmer (Raj.). On analysis of the sample milk the Public Analyst reported the same to be adulterated due to its containing fat contents at 2.5% and solids non-fat contents at 5.3% as against 3.5% and 8.5% respectively prescribed under the relevant rules and having 37% of added water therein. On a complaint filed by the Food Inspector the Addl. Civil Judge cum Magistrate 1st Class, Ajmer tried the petitioner on charge under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Found Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) and by his judgment arid order dated 18.1.1978 found him guilty of the same. He therefore, convicted the petitioner accordingly and sentenced him 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner challenged the order of his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer Who, accepting petitioner's only objection that in absence of any notification, during the period from 1.4.76 to February 1977, conferring powers of summary trial under Sec. 16A upon the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Add. Chief Judicial Magistrates to try cases under the Act, the trial of the petitioner was bad, set aside the judgement and order of the learned Magistrate dated 18.1.1978 and sent the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer for trial of the petitioner according to law. The learned CJM adopted the procedure of a warrant case on request of the petitioner and after holding the trial de novo again convicted him of the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act. But this time he imposed a punishment of one year R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine vide his judgment and order dated 13.12.1982. In appeal the learned Special Judge SC/ST Cases/Addl. Sessions Judge, Ajmer vide his impugned judgement and order dated 28.4.92 upheld the order of conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 1 year to six months R.I. and of fine of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- only. Hence this revision petition under Sec. 397 CrPC.

(2.) The only point raised before me by Mr. M.K. Kaushik Advocate appearing for Mr. Onkar Singh Lakhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the Asstt. Public Prosecutor had no authority to conduct the present case before the learned trial court. I find no merits in this argument.

(3.) A point of law which goes to the very root of the case and strikes at the jurisdiction of the court to try such case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings including the proceedings before the appellate/revisional courts. But the point to be raised must be such which, if not allowed to be raised, would cause damage to the principles of natural justice and defeat the ends of justice. Mere technicalities and irregularities which do not cause failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. For, principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be counter productive (See State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996 3 SCC 364).