CHIRANJILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER,
LAWS(RAJ)-1967-8-14
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 31,1967

CHIRANJILAL Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan And Another, Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

<RC>1968 CRILJ 1529 : 1968 RLW 417</RC> RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT <JGN>V.P.TYAGI</JGN> <AT>CRIMINAL REVN. NO. 404 OF 1967</AT>,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ADDL. S.J. NO. 1 JAIPUR, 31.08.1967 31.8.1967. D/D. 1.12.1967 CHIRANJILAL STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER, VERSUS <ADV>K.N.TIKKU,S.M.MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
CHHUTANNI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHUNNOO VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.P.Tyagi, J. - (1.)This revision application has been filed by Chiranjilal who has been facing trials under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the court of the Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City.
(2.)The fact and circumstances out of which this revision arises are as follows :
On 6th Sept., 1966, at 11.00 a. m. the Food Inspector of Municipal Council, Jaipur went to the shop of the petitioner and obtained samples of ghee and oil from that shop which were suspected by the Food Inspector to be adulterated. Those samples were sent for examination to the Public Analyst who, it is alleged, reported that both these articles did not conform to the standards prescribed for these commodities by the Act. Two challans were, therefore, submitted against the applicant, one for the adulteration of oil and the other for the adulteration of ghee, and they were separately registered by the learned Municipal Magistrate as cases Nos. 98 and 99 of 1966. On 9th Dec., 1966, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court that he should be tried jointly but the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that joint trial is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner. A revision was filed against the said order of the Magistrate in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, but the learned Judge also dismissed the revision of the petitioner. It is against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.)The main argument that has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that by separate trials his client will unnecessarily be inconvenienced and harassed and that he will be required to undergo unnecessary expenses in facing two trials where the evidence of both the parties in both the cases will be the same. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the two Allahabad authorities in Chunnoo Vs. State, A.I.R. 1954 Allahabad 795 and Kameshwar Vs. State, A.I.R. 1958 Allahabad 318 .


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