MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOTA Vs. HARAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment dated December 19,1980 by which the learned Chief. Judicial Magistrate, Kota, acquitted the respondent in Cr. Case No. 115/1979, from the charges of offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Choudhary as also Shri Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) APART from this, it is also contended by the learned counsel that while aming the charge, the respondent-accused was not confronted with the report of Public Analyst, which was necessary to do, so that accused could understand the charge and may be in a position to face and meet the same. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad vs. The State of Rajasthan (1 ). It was held by this court in the above case that when the report of Central Food Laboratory is not put to accused in examination under Section 313, the same cannot be used against him. It may be pointed out that as back as in 1953, in case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2), it was held by the Supreme Court that in any circumstances in respect of which an accused was not examined under Section 342 Cr. P. C. (now 313 Cr. P. C.) the same cannot be used against him. In this case also it was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the accused-respondent should have been confronted with the findings of the Public Analyst at the time when the charge was framed so that he was aware of the offence, said to have been committed by him and he could meet the same. From the charge-sheet dated 19. 03. 1980, I find that the accused was not confronted with the report of Public Analyst. On this ground also, it can be said that the report of Public Analyst could not have been used against him.