S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) SAMPLE of 'Shakkar' obtained by Food Inspector from the shop of petitioner Bajrang Lal at Azad Chowk, Narnaul on 20th April, 1984 was found on analysis by the Public Analyst to contain unpermitted orange coal tar dye therein. While recording evidence learned trial court discovered that the concerned Food Inspector was prohibited by Director, Health Services Haryana, from taking samples onwards from 18th April 1984. Learned trial court discharged the accused vide its order dated 3rd August, 1988.
(2.) IN Criminal Revision No. 24 of 988 decided on 26th February, 1990 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, found that Director, Health Services. Haryana, could not freeze the powers of Food Inspector and since the State Government Haryana has issued the notification doing so on 7th June, 1984, the petitioner could certainly be prosecuted for the lapse aforesaid. After acceptance of the said revision the case was, therefore, remanded to the learned trial court for redeciding the matter afresh according to law. Accused petitioner Bajrang Lal has, therefore, filed Criminal Revision No. 244 of 1990 in this Court for reversal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and restoration of the order passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Additional Session Judge could not sit in judgment over the legality of the order passed by Director, Health Services Haryana on 13th April, 1984. Once this fact was proved before the learned trial court, the obvious conclusion which was rightly taken by the learned trial court was that on 20th April, 1984 the date of taking the sample, Food Inspector had no authority to take any sample from the petitioner; more so when State Government of Haryana the competent authority to take the decision as per observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge accorded its ex- post facto approval to the action taken by the Director, Health Services, Haryana on 18th April, 1984 vide its notification of 7-6-1484. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge may have been possible if he was seized of a service dispute at the instance of concerned employee but could not legally be taken in a criminal prosecution wherein the benefit of doubt is always to go to the accused.
(3.) IN result Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner succeed# and is allowed. Impugned order dated 26th February, 1990 of the learned Additional Session Judge, Narnaul, is vacated and that of the learned trial court dated 3rd August, 1988 is restored. Petition allowed.;