Jasmer Chand vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Food Inspector Kurukshetra took sample of milk out of 12 litres of cow''s milk carried by the accusedpetitioner for sale near octroi No. 5 at Babin Shahbad Road on January 20, 1981. Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PD found the sample deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 3.5% and, therefore, reported it to be adulterated. Vide his judgment dated February 3, 1984 in criminal case No. 5/3 of 1982 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, convicted the accusedpetitioner of the commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine, accusedpetitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

In Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1986, finding that the accusedpetitioner had been prejudiced in his defence because the report of the Public Analyst had not been put to him in proper perspective for explanation by the learned trial Court while recording his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. learned lower Appellate Court remanded the case back to the learned trial Court for recording the statement of the accusedpetitioner under Section 313, Cr.P.C. afresh.

It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the accusedpetitioner that the accusedpetitioner having undergone the agony of proceedings for the last 7 years, instead of remanding the case for fresh trial onwards from the state of statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. learned lower Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the accused. Oversation made in Bhim Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 346, Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, 1983 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 51, Kai Ram v. State of Haryana, 1983 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 210, Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 51 , Chatar Bhuj v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 330 and Subash Chand v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 98 have been cited as authorities in support of the contention.

In respectful agreement with the view propounded therein the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order of remand dated May 17, 1986 is quashed and the petitioner is acquitted.