State of Rajasthan vs Mohan Lal

Inder Sen Israni, J.—This criminal appeal u/s 378(1)(3) Cr. P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated October 12, 1979 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Case No. 247 of 1976.

It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on 17th June, 1975 samples of ''Laddu'' of ''Nukti'' were taken from respondent Mohan Lal, who was selling the same. For the purposes of sample ''Laddu'' weighing 1500 gms. were taken after paying to the respondent its price and he was told that the samples of the ''Laddu'' shall be sent to the Public Health Laboratory for analysing the same. Three containers of the sample were sent to Public Analyst, Jaipur, from which a report was received that the ''Laddus'' were adulterated. Thereupon, the respondent was challaned u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, from where the case was transferred to Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur who after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondent as stated above.

Since about one month the lawyers'' are not available in the Court and the Lawyer of the respondent has not appeared to argue the case even though the appeal has been listed since last several days. No Amicus Curiae could also be appointed on behalf of the respondent on account of nonavailability of the Lawyers''. None has appeared for the State also.

I have gone through the judgment of the trial court as also the memo of appeal filed on behalf of the State, evidence and documents on record.

The grounds on which the appeal has been filed are in short as under. The first ground raised is that the trial court should have raised presumption in favour of prosecution under provisions of Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act that official acts were regularly performed. In support of this contention reliance has been placed in the case of Swaroop Ram Vs. The State,

The next ground raised is that Jamuna Prasad (PW 1) has stated in his evidence that apart from sending one copy of Form No. VII with the sample, another copy of Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst by Registered Post. It is, therefore, contended that the compliance of Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 has been fully made. Therefore, the trial court has erred in holding that the compliance of Rule 7 was not made. It is also contended that the trial court has not correctly understood the ratio of the authority reported in The State of Rajasthan v. Ram Sahai 1979 CLR 60. It has been, therefore, urged that the judgment of the trial court under appeal should be set aside.

On going through the statements of Jamuna Prasad (PW 1), Nawal Singh(PW 2) and Sita Ram(PW 3) it is amply proved that the Food Inspector Jamuna Prasad (PW 1) did visit the shop of the respondent ''Bharatpur Mishthan Bhandar'', and took samples of Laddu weighing 1500 Gms. after paying the necessary price and three containers for sending samples of ''Laddu''. were prepared. The only ground on which the trial court has acquitted the respondent is on account of non-compliance of Rule 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. On analysing the statement of Jamuna Prasad(PW 1) Food Inspector with a view to see whether Rules 7, 17 & 18 were complied with, it will be seen that he has stated in his statement that the containers containing the sample of ''Laddu'' were sealed and an extra copy of the Form No. VII was sent by the registered post to the Public Health Analyst. Therefore, compliance of Rule No. 18 was made. Rule No. 17 lays down the manner of despatching containers of sample. Its bare reading shows that what is required is that, the sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form No. VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means. It is, therefore, incumbent that while sending the sealed container of the sample for analysis, a memorandum in Form No. VII must be sent in the sealed packet. Rule 18 requires that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorized by him. Rule 7 lays down the duties of Public Analyst when he receives the package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person. It has been laid down in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 that on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person the Public Analyst or an Officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. It will be seen from the statement of Jamuna Prasad (PW. 1) that he has not stated any where that the container of the sample was kept in outer cover along with the Form No. VII and thereafter, sent to the Public Analyst. Therefore, it is evident that compliance of Rule 7 was not made, which requires that the container should be kept in outer cover and again sealed and thereafter, sent to the Public Analyst. Rule 7 is mandatory. In no event the full rigor of Rule 7 should be relaxed so as to result in effective deprivation of the right of the accused person given to him under law. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Sahai 1979 CLR 60, it was held by this Court that since the report of the Public Analyst was not in the amended prescribed forms, therefore, the compliance of Rules 17 & 18 could not be said to have been made, and the appeals of the State were dismissed. In the present case also the compliance of Rule 7 has not been made as stated above. The trial court has rightly applied the ratio laid down in the case of State v. Ram Sahai (supra) to the facts of the present case. The Rules have been framed and strict compliance of Rules 7, 17 & 18 is expected to safeguard the rights of the accused-persons. Since the compliance of the Rule 7 as shown above was not made, no presumption could be raised in favour of the prosecution as claimed by the State.

In the result I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed. The accused-respondent is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds.