Jagan Nath vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

This is revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind dated March, 23, 1983, whereby. the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short. the Act) Imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jind vide order dated January, 11, 1982, was upheld.

The prosecution case is that on January 3, 1979, Moti Ram.. Govt. Food Inspector, Jind accompanied by Rattan and Dr. R.S. Garg went to the premises of the petitioner situated in village Datrath and purchased 900 grams of chewing golis from him for analysis. After completing the formalities. one of the samples of chewing golis was sent to the Public. Analyst, who subsequently found the same to be adulterated as it contained acid insoluble ash in Dil Hel 0.26%. against the maximum prescribed standard or 0.20% and soap stone 0.21%. The sample was also coloured, with unpermitted orange coat tardye.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Moti Ram, Govt. Food Inspector, P.W.I, Rattan, P.W. 2, Dr. R. S. Garg. P.W. 3 and a clerk from the office of the Chief Medical Officer. P.W. 4. The Petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity In the cast but adduced no evidence in defence. The trial Court on the basis of the material placed before it convicted and sentenced the accused as noted above.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the judgment of the learned Magistrate observed in his judgment in the following terms :

"It is true that in the Rules only the standard for sweet golis has been prescribed and there is no standard prescribed for chewing golis. Neither the Food Inspector nor the doctor deposed that chewing golis were in sweet toffees with the accused. So it will be held that there is no standard prescribed for chewing golis In the instant case I am of view that accused is still guilty for the offence because the provisions. contained in Rules 23 to 29 of the Rules have been violated. Under the above rules, use of prohibited coat tardye in any food is not allowed."

It is manifest from the record that the Government Food Inspector initiated Prosecution against the petitioner under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7 of the Act and on that basis, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and accordingly charged him for the said offence This was the case which the petitioner was called upon by the Magistrate to meet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment that there is no standard prescribed for chewing golis. If that was so, the petitioner could not be convicted under 5. 7/16 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found the petitioner guilty for violating the Rules 23 to 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, but this was not specifically mentioned in the charge framed against the petitioner. The charge must always be so framed that the person charged may have proper notice of what he has to meet and as to what were the ingredients which brought the food stuff sold within the mischief of the Act as an adulterated food stuff. A more description that the sample collected from the accused was adulterated, in my opinion would not amount to any legal charge. A charge in a general or may lead to the abuse that the prosecution at a later stage may bring in any evidence to the prejudice of the accused. Thus the prejudice becomes inherent in a matter of the nature of the charge under the Act. When the liability was sought to he fastened on the petitioner on an entirely different ground not mentioned in the charge. I feel that the conviction of the petitioner for the violation of the Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules could not have been sustained.

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted. Fine, if realized, shall be refunded to the petitioner.