State (Delhi Admn.) vs Ramesh Chand Jain
2005 Latest Caselaw 315 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1985, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Crl . A. No. 48/1985, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused and has allowed the appeal directed against the judgment dated 29th May, 1984, and the order dated 31st May, 1984, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide which the respondent herein was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs.6000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.

2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :

"the prosecution case started on the basis of a complaint dated 25.8.80 filed by Shri R.N. Gujral, Asstt. Municipal Prosecutor, M.C.D. On behalf of the Delhi Administration.

4. It is alleged in the complaint that on 14.4.80 at about 2 p.m. accused Ramesh Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s. Khairati Lal Pritam Chand Jain, sold a sample of chillies powder for analysis under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rules made there under to Shri Baljit Singh, Food Inspector at shop No. J-9, Sharadhanand Market, Delhi, where the said accused was storing the said article of food for sale; that this sample of chillies powder bearing no. BS/FI/7/80 was found to be adulterated on analysis by the public analysis vide his report dated 6.5.80; that the Secretary (Medical) Delhi Administration, has given consent for instituting and conducting on behalf of the Delhi Administration, the prosecution against the accused that accused be summoned and be punished.

5. Accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and moved an application u/s 13(2) of the Act and the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, where it was received on 23.9.80 and the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad is dated 12.2.1981. According to this report Ex. PX of the Director, the sample does not conform to the standard of chillies (lal mirch) powder laid down in clause A.05.01.01 of P.F.A. Rules, 1955, because the sample showed presence of oil soluble coal tar colour."

3. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accused has not been put the incriminating material against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the material that had not been put to him could not be read in evidence against him. Secondly, the prosecution has failed to establish that sanction obtained was a valid one.

4. Counsel for the State has taken me through the judgment under challenge and has argued that the incriminating material if not put to the accused does not harm the prosecution's case inasmuch as there is other evidence which can form the basis of conviction. He has also submitted that the sanction obtained was as per the requirements of law and therefore, the trial court was wrong in acquitting the accused.

5. From a perusal of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears that the incriminating material in the report against the accused has not been put to him. It need hardly be re-stated that the circumstances which the prosecution seeks to rely upon if not put to the accused cannot be used against him. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984, Supreme Court, 1922 ]. Further, the sanction granted appears to be most mechanical by filling in blanks in a printed form, without the application of mind. Accordingly, there is a violation of Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The findings of the trial court in both these aspects cannot be faulted with. That being the case, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. Crl .A. 251/1985 is accordingly dismissed.