KAMAL PRABHA DAROLIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973, is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 19th September, 1978.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 12th April, 1976, at about 10. 30 A. M. Shri Devi Singh, Food Inspector went to the Ice Candy Plant of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. , Shri Mahaveerji. Tehsil Hindaun. At that time, Prahlad son of Surajmal Agarwal a partner of the firm, was present at the shop, and was selling ice candy to the public. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, purchased 900 grams of ice candy from Prahlad Kumar for the purpose of analysis, and paid him 75 P. The accused Prahlad Kumar issued a receipt for that amount to the Food Inspector. The ice candy was divided into three parts and 24 drops of formalin were added to the ice candy and later on the ice candy was sealed. After obtaining permission from the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karauli, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. During the trial, the statement of Devi Singh was recorded on 14th February, 1978. The Food Inspector had stated that the accused Prahlad Kumar had told him that Mst. Kamal Prabha, Rattan Lal, Mohanlal and Kalyan Prasad, are the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. It is on the basis of this statement that a charge has been framed against the present petitioners also. Against the framing of the charge three revision petitions were filed before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. The learned Sessions Judge rejected all the three revision petitions on 19th September, 1978, holding that it is not a case of no evidence.

(3.) THE complaint has been lodged by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karouli. THE ice candy has been found to be adulterated. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, before whom the case is pending, has framed charges against the accused petitioners on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector, Shri Devi Singh. Shri Devi Singh has stated that Prahlad Kumar told him that besides himself the present four accused-petitioners are partners of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company. On the basis of this statement, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge. This statement of Prahlad Kumar was considered by him to be an extra judicial confession. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge held that it is not a case of no evidence; it may, however, be a case of weak evidence THE prosecution has not led its full evidence as yet, and it looks premature to hold that the present accused-petitioners are either not the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company, or that no criminal responsibility can be fixed by virtue of Sub-sec. , 4) of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE powers under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. are to be very sparingly used. Such powers should be invoked if the prosecution launched is wholly without jurisdiction, or is palpably false or vexatious, or, would in any tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court.