State of Haryana vs Hari Ram

Ujagar Singh, J.—Respondent Hari Ram was prosecuted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and vide order dated 5th June, 1981 he was acquitted of the charge on the ground that neither Shri Balwant Singh, the complainant and the Govt Food Inspector was present nor Shri Sant Lal, who was said to have been posted in place of Shri Balwant Singh attended the Court on the said date and also there was no evidence on the record to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence.

The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against acquittal on the ground that Shri Balwant Singh had been transferred and in his place Shri Sant Lal had taken over. It is further alleged that Shri R. K. Sood Food Inspector was present on the date fixed and had informed the Court that Shri Sant Lal, Government Food Inspector had been detained by the Chief Medical Officer, Rohtak in some urgent case and a request was made to the Court to grant the prosecution an opportunity to produce the evidence but instead of accepting the request, the respondent was acquitted.

Counsel for the State has argued that the complaint was presented on 2nd May, 1980 and the respondent was summoned for 13th June, 1980 on which date the respondent was directed to furnish bail bond in the amount of Rs. 2000/ with one surety in the like amount and the case was adjourned to 8th August, 1980 for evidence. The statement of the complainant (Food Inspector) was recorded on the last date and the evidence was closed for the purposes of charge, case was adjourned to 22.8.1980 and on that date a prima facie case having been made out, the respondent was charged under Sections 7/16 of the Act and the case was adjourned to 19th September. 1980 for evidence of the prosecution. The order of 19th September, 1980 shows that the complainant was not present but was earlier examined as P.W. 1 before the charge was framed. Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that piecemeal evidence be not recorded and thereupon the trial Court discharged the P. Ws. and directed the P Ws. to appear on 5th December, 1980 on which date Balwant Singh Food Inspector was present but the order shows that no P.W. was present and summons had not been received back. This order further shows that P Ws. were directed to be summoned for 16th January, 1981. The order of l6th January, 1981 also shows that Balwant Singh P.W. was again present but no other evidence was present and they were directed to be summoned for 13th February, 1981. On 13th February, 1981 presence of Sant Lal, Government Food Inspector is recorded but as summons of the PWs. had not been received back they were directed to be summoned for 9th April, 1981 on which date Shri R. K. Sood, Government Food Inspector was present Balwant Singh P.W. 1 was also present. Again an objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that piecemeal evidence should not be recorded and this objection was upheld and the P. Ws. present were discharged. The P.Ws. were again directed to be summoned for 5th June, 1981 on which date the impugned order was passed.

The impugned order shows that Balwant Singh was stated to be transferred to Sonepat and in his place Shri Sant Lal had been posted and on that day neither of the two Government Food Inspectors was present.

An affidavit of Shri R.K. Sood was produced along with the grounds of appeal, according to which he was present in the Court on the date fixed and informed that Sant Lal G.F.I. had been detained by the Chief Medical Officer, Rohtak in some urgent case and that he had made a request to the Court to grant an opportunity to produce its evidence but the Court did not accede to it and that it is wrongly mentioned in the order that none was present on behalf of the prosecution.

The trial Court had in mind that Balwant Singh G.F.I., who was examined as P W. 1 in the case was a different man than the complainant In his statement as P.W.1 he has specifically stated that complaint Exhibit P.E was filed by him against the respondent. The history of the case shows that Balwant Singh G.F.I. was present on almost all the dates while the trial Court was mentioning in the Zimni orders that no P.W. was present for getting that Balwan Singh was also a witness and could be, crossexamined and then, if the trial Court wanted, could close the evidence of the prosecution and decide the case on whatever evidence was brought on the file. Balwant Singh had been examined as P.W. 1 before charge and in the order dated 19.9.1980 his presence is recorded and his statement was not recorded because of the objection raised by the counsel for the accused with regard to the recording of piecemeal evidence. Similar objection was raised on 9.4.1981 and the case was adjourned. Shri R.K. Sood G.F.I. was present for the complainant also on 9.4.1981 and his evidence given in this case cannot be said to be wrong as on the earlier date he was present in the Court JUDGMENTs of 5.12.1980 and 13.2.1981 show that the summons for the witnesses had not been received back and it becomes the duty of the Court to enforce the attendance of the witness as soon as a request is made to summon the witness. In any case the Court could exercise these powers on the earlier dates by allowing crossexamination of Balwant Singh G.F.I. and then closing the evidence of the complainant if it was satisfied that the remaining witnesses were to be produced by the complainant on his own responsibility but it did not happen and all of a sudden the Court acquitted the respondent without giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant to produce the witnesses. This appeal is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is set aside.

The impugned order having been set aside the only course open to this court is whether the case is to be remanded for trial or not after lapse of such a long period. Sample was taken on 21.3.1980 from the respondent and after completion of formalities the complaint was presented on 2.5.1980 and since then the respondent is undergoing the agony of suspense. After a period of more than 7 years we do not think it desirable to remand the case for retrial from the stage of the charge and allow an opportunity to the prosecution to produce their evidence. Even the learned counsel for the State has also agreed that the State only wanted to get the order set aside and that the remand of the case for retrial will be very harsh on the respondent. The respondent has sufficiently suffered and in the circumstances the case is not remanded, this appeal is decided accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.