RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Kishan son of Gurditta Mall, the petitioner, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Safidon, for an offence under Section 7(1) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. His appeal was partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, to the extent that although the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, the case was remanded to trial Court with the direction that it should record the statement of petitioner afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by specifically putting to him the extent of alleged adulteration as evidenced by the report of the public Analyst and then to decide the case afresh. The present revision petition is directed against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) ON facts there is no dispute that according to the report of the Public Analyst, the article recovered from the petitioner, i.e. Bura, was on analysis, found to be not conforming to the prescribed standard in that the Sulphur Dioxide contents were found to be 89.5 p.p.m. as against the maximum prescribed ratio of 70 p.p.m. It is also apparent that this specific allegation of adulteration was not put to the petitioner during the course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) AS against the above authorities, the learned counsel for the State has referred to 1982(I) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 233, State of Haryana Versus Sawan Ram, decided by a Division Bench of this Court. A perusal of this authority reveals that the same is distinguishable on facts. What was held in this case is that the benefit of a technical ground like those referred to in the authority, should not be allowed to the accused in a case involving antisocial crime. The technical grounds referred to in the said authority are quite different and they do not relate to the default committed by the Court in not putting the essential ingredients of adulteration to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This authority has, therefore, no application to the present case.