VEER PUNERJAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgement dt. Nov. 9, 1989 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Karauli, Camp Hindaun, remanding the case to the trial Court for putting a question under S.313, Cr. P.C. to the accused in respect of the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory that the article of food was adulterated, is not in accordance with law because besides this point, other points were also taken but the learned appellate Court did not consider other points, and had those points been considered, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would have resulted in the acquittal of the accused petitioner.

(2.) So far as the relevant facts are concerned, they are these. Food Inspector purchased Ice Candey from the accused petitioner for the purpose of analysis. It was divided in three equal parts and after adding the requisite quantity of formalin the samples were sealed, one of which was sent to Public Analyst, who on examining the sample found the same to be adulterated as it contained sacreen. The report of the Public Analyst was given to the accused petitioner and after a complaint was filed, during the trial of the case an application was filed on behalf of the accused petitioner that there is another sample which is lying in the Court or the local authorities and that sample may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The application of the petitioner was allowed and the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory who also on examining the same found to be adulterated. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the Act). The accused petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and in the appeal besides the point that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory stated under S.313, Cr. P.C., there were other points also. The learned appellate Court placing reliance on the case of Jagdish. Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cri LJ (Raj) 620, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate with the direction that he should put questions in respect of the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory, to the accused petitioner under Sec. 313, Cr. P.C.

(3.) It appears that in the aforesaid case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) this court placed reliance on Hatesingh Bhagatsingh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 , Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 557 and Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1566. In the case of Hatesingh Bhagatsingh (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the circumstances appearing in that case as the case was based on circumstantial evidence but those circumstances were not put to the accused under S.342, Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court in para 25 said that -