Municipal Board, Mainpuri vs Krishna Murari Lal

Chandra Prakash, J.—This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Mainpuri against the order dated 2281972 of Sri U. S. Gautam SubDivisional Magistrate, Mainpuri acquitting Krishna Murari Lal respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The respondent, Krishna Murari Lal, was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the complaint of the Food Inspector Sri D. S. Siraudia (P. W. 1). The allegations against him were that the respondent on 721972 was found selling account and tea packets without having a licence as required by Rule 50 of the P.F.A. Rule 1955 at Tahsil Chandra, District Mainpuri. The complaint as dated 1021972.

On 2661972 a charge was framed against the respondent. It appears that 1771972 was the date fixed for the crossexamination of the Food Inspector Sri B. S. Siraudia (P. W. 1) under Section 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code but the Food Inspector did not appear till 2181972 and the evidence was closed. The court below ignored the statement of the Food Inspector and acquitted the respondent on 2271972.

Against the above order, Municipal Board, Mainpuri come up in appeal. Nobody appeared on behalf of Municipal Board, Mainpuri and I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and come to the conclusion that the order of the Court below cannot be allowed to stand.

It appears from a perusal of the record that the statement of Sri B. S. Siraudia was recorded on 961972 and the charge was framed against the respondent on 2661972. It further appears that the case was postponed to 1771972 for the crossexamination of the Food Inspection under Section 256 Criminal Procedure Code but he did not appear. The procedure adopted by the Court below was not correct. The trial of the case commenced as a warrant case and in a warrant case the duty lies on the Magistrate to secure attendance of the complainant and his witnesses for further crossexamination. The record does not show that any step was taken by the Court below to secure attendance either of the Food Inspector or any other witness. The Court below was in error in acquitting the respondent on account of the absence of the Food Inspector. It was the duty of the Court below itself to secure attendance of the witnesses. The matter has been considered by me in detail in Municipal Board, Mainpuri v. Raja Ram, Cr. Appeal No. 3096 of 1972 (Since reported in 1976 A.C.C.). A copy of the judgment in that case is on the record of this case.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the Court below is set aside and retrial of the respondent according to law is directed.