STATE OF H.P. Vs. DESH RAJ
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF H.P.
Click here to view full judgement.
D.P.SOOD, J. -
(1.) SH . Desh Raj, Respondent, who was prosecuted by the Appellant in the trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), carries on his karyana shop at Chauntara, Tehsil Jogindernagar,
District Mandi. On December 23, 1983 Sh. P.S. Verma, the then Food Inspector after disclosing
his identify and also expressing his desire to lift the sample of Ajwain for the purpose of analysis,
purchased 450 gram thereof against due payment of Rs. 4 -50 paise against receipt Ex. PB in the
presence of witness Sh. Charan Singh. After observing codel formalities, the said sample was
divided into three equal parts and was put into three neat, clean and dry bottles which were
sealed and wrapped in accordance with law Later on sample was sent to the analyst at
Chandigarh (Punjab). Vide his report Ex PE, he found the contents of the sample containing
3.30% of inorganic extraneous matter against a maximum prescribed standard of 20 percent. The Food Inspector, thereafter afforded an opportunity to Desh Raj by intimating him vide letter dated
23 -9 -1984 that his commodity to which sample was taken by him was found to be adulterated/misbranded and in case he wanted the second Sample kept in the office of the local
health authority concerned, to be analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, he can do
so within ten days after the receipt of the letter (Ex. PW 3/B). Subsequently, he sought sanction
(Ex PF) from the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi District, H.P. for the prosecution of the Respondent
and prosecuted him for the commission of offence referred to above.
(2.) THE notice of accusation was given and explained to the accused but he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Court below found the sanction order Ex. PF to be not a legal and valid order and holding that as the said sanction order constitutes condition
precedent to the institution of the prosecution, whole of the proceedings launched against the
Respondent were illegal and liable to be vitiated. On this basis, he recorded the impugned order of
acquittal on September 26, 1987 which has been assailed by the State of H.P. through his appeal.
(3.) SH . C.L. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent -State of H. P., as Special Public Prosecutor, has attempted to persuade this Court that once the sanction
order has been exhibited and accepted by the trial Court without any objection raised by the
opposite party, it could not have been assailed by the Respondent during the course of arguments
nor the Court below could have held it to be illegal and void document not capable of being acted
upon for the purpose of basing his conviction by prosecuting the Respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.