Ranpat Singh vs State of Haryana

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner Ranpat Singh has been convicted under section 161(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. It was also ordered that in default of payment of fine he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. He maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to 6 months. The fine was also reduced to Rs. 1000/.

The brief facts according to the prosecution are that on 20th July, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. the accused was found carrying 12 kgs. of cow milk in a drum for sale at Bhiwani, by Sher Singh, Food Inspector. The Food Inspector took sample of milk in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the same to be adulterated as milk solids not fat were 31% deficient of the maximum prescribed standard. After the report of the Public Analyst prosecution was launched against the petitioner.

At the close of the prosecution evidence the petitioner was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He took up the plea that he was not a milk seller and on the other hand he was an employee in the District Jail, Bhiwani. He was sent by Ram Din constable, who was posted in that District Jail, to bring milk from the shop of Ram Sarup. According to him, Ram Din had told him that he had called milk from Ram Narain of Prem Nagar and it would be lying at the shop of said Ram Sarup. In support of his plea, the accused examined D.W. 1 Ram Din and D.W. 2, Ram Narain, who supported his plea. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the defence evidence.

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that both the Courts below have wrongly disbelieved the defence plea. I am afraid the evidence cannot be reappraised at this stage. In this respect reference can be made to State of Orissa v. Nakula Sadhu and others, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 663 wherein it was remarked :

"So far as the first point is concerned, it is to be emphasised that although the revisional power of the High Court under S. 439 read with Sec. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is as wide as the power of Court Appeal under S. 423 of Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on the point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Reference in his connection may be made to the decisions of this (Court in Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose, 1973(4) SCC 10 : (AIR 1973 SC 799) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, 1973(2) SCC 583 : (AIR 1973 SC 2145). In this latter case viz Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) this Court following its earlier decision in Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (supra) held that in spite of the wide language of S. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which empowered it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior court situate within the limits of its jurisdiction and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court and in spite of the fact that under S. 439 of the Code it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under Section 423 of the Code the High Court is not expected to act under S. 435 or S. 439 as if it is hearing an appeal."

In view of the above dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the evidence cannot be reappraised. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the learned Courts below. No defect in the procedure was pointed out.

For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the present revision petition.