State of Haryana vs Lal Chand

V.M. Jain, J.

The respondent was tried for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as he was allegedly found in possession of 20 Kgs. of adulterated cow''s milk on 28.8.1988. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul vide judgment dead January 27, 1994 held the respondent guilty for the said offence and convicted him thereunder and also sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. The appeal filed by the accused was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide judgment dated January 11, 1999 and the accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him. The State of Haryana has filed the present petition for the grant of leave to appeal.

We have heard Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge had accepted the appeal of the accused and acquitted him of the charge framed against him inter alia on the ground that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst were not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no case was made out for remanding the case of the trial Court for this purpose considering that the matter pertained to the year 1988. While acquitting the accused and declining to remand the case to the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in case reported as 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 510, Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, and 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 169, Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we find no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As referred to above, the sample was taken as far back as on August 28, 1988. More than 11 years have passed since then. No useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the learned Magistrate for decision afresh after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and putting the contents of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused in the said case.

In view of the above, finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss it.