Decided on March 07,1993

MOHAN LAL Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.)THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 31 -8 -1992 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and up -holding the order of the learned Special Municipal Magistrate, Jammu dated 25 -3 -1991 whereunder he was convicted U/S 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, herein -after referred to as "Act", and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - I have heard the learned counsel For the petitioner and have gone through the file thoroughly. Nobody appeared for the respondent -State to argue the cast despite a long wait till the rising of the Court.
(2.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only one point before me which, according to him, was sufficient to clinch the issue. He submitted that non -compliance of the mandate of section 13(2) of the Act has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, which the courts below have not properly appreciated, resulting in his conviction. According to him, the learned courts below have committed an illegality in recording the findings of conviction and sentence against the petitioner without considering the important question of law involved in the matter. Under Section 13(2) of the Act, the complainant is required to send a registered notice to the accused along with the report of the Analyst, who in turn has a right to get the said sample further analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory. Section 13(2) for the sake of facility is reproduced below: "On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub -section (1) to the effect that the article of food adulterated, the local (Health) Authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14 -A, forward in such manner as maybe prescribed a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons as the case may be informing such person or persons that he is so desirous, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory".
(3.)IN the present case, the petitioner accused at all as it was sent to his namesake did not receive the said report of the analysis. From the perusal of record, it appears that the complaint came to be filed before the trial Court on 10 -10 -1987 when a notice was directed to be issued to the accused. He could not be served on the address given in the complaint. On 18 -1 -1988, a non -bailable warrant was issued against the accused. The police could not execute the warrant and reported to the Court that the accused had turned mad and was admitted in the Mental Hospital Jammu. After so many hearing, report was submitted to the Court that the accused was discharged from the Mental Hospital. The Court again issued a non -bail able warrant against him on 31 -8 -1988. The warrants were repeatedly issued but could not be executed when on 29 -5 -1989 proceedings were initiated against him U/S 87 of the Cr. P.C. Last of all, on 16 -10 -1989 the complainant furnished a fresh address of the accused and prayed for issuance of a warrant to be executed by S.H.O. Police Station, Bakshi Nagar. Thereafter, the accused appeared before the Court on 20 -10 -1989 and the proceedings started against him.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two persons in the name of Mohan Lal and the complainant had given the address of that Mohan Lal who was not the accused. It was that Mohan Lal who had turned mad. The Court, accordingly, had summoned not the accused but his namesake. Similarly, the warrants too were issued against one who actually was not accused. This process of summoning of a wrong person continued from 10 -10 -1987 to 16 -10 1989. Not only the warrants were issued against a wrong person, even the report of the analysis was sent to the wrong person. The accused had never received the report. He has clearly stated so in his statement U/S 342 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has not really considered this point in its right perspective and nor considered its seriousness. Though it has noticed the plea of the accused that the report was not serf to him, but it has brushed aside the same saying that it has not caused any prejudice to him. The learned appellate court also has committed the same error.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.