Naresh Kumar vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Naresh Kumar and Hardit Singh were convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/ each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for the months by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 13.6.1985. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in appeal remanded the case for fresh decision. Petitioners feeling aggrieved, have filed these the two revisions Naresh Kumar has filed Crl. Revision No. 236 of 1986 and Hardit Singh has filed criminal Revision No. 237 of 1986. As they both arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by one judgment.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.9.1982 at about 11 a.m. Shri K.K. Mehra, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. Raj Pal Singh, went to the shop of Hardit Singh were Naresh Kumar was working as a servant and took sample of chillies powder. Chillies were found to be adulterated and a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. At the request of the petitioners the second sample was sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad who also vide his report dated 29.1.1983 opined that the sample did not conform to the standard of chillies powder. The learned Judicial Magistrate did not put the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad to the accused but had put the report of Public Analyst to the petitioners in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

After their conviction by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioners had raised this point before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the ground that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, supersedes the report of Public Analyst and as report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has not been put to them in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial is vitiated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the contention of the petitioners and remanded the case to the Magistrate for proceeding according to law after putting the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, to the accused. Feeling aggrieved against the order of remand passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed these revisions.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Mr. M.S. Ratta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the sample was taken on 9.9.1982 and the case has been remanded by Additional Sessions Judge on 12.12.1985. As the case was remanded after more than three years of the criminal trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in remanding the case for fresh trial but should have acquitted the petitioners as they have faced the agony of trial for more than three years.

I have considered the submission. The sample was taken in 1982 and the petitioners had faced the trial for more than three years before the case was remanded. The adulteration alleged is also marginal.

Prit Pal Singh, Judge, in Chaurbhuj v. State of Haryana, reported as 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 330 : 1985(2) F.A.C. 205 , had set aside the order of remand in a similar situation. Prit Pal Singh, J. had relied Machander Singh v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 and some other judgments. Agreeing with Prit Pal Singh, J., the order of remand passed by Additional Sessions Judge, on 12.12.1985 is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. Consequently, Criminal Revision Nos. 236 of 1986 and 237 of 1986, filed by Naresh Kumar and Hardit Singh respectively are allowed.

Revision allowed.