Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) WITH the aid of this under section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Om Parkash Gupta of Patiala implores this Court to quash the proceedings and the complaint filed against him under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hence forth as the Act) which is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. A specific prayer for the quashing of the order dated May 10, 1976 by which the petitioner was charged for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Act, is also made.
(2.) THE allegation as contained in the complaint is, that the Food Inspector inspected the premises of Modi Spinning and weaving Mills, Patiala, on June 24, 1974, and found the petitioner (who is stated to be the Manager of the Mill) having in his possession about 23F Quintals of Cotton Seed Oil for sale, lying in a tack. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. of this oil on payment. The oil was converted in three equal parts into three bottles which were duly stoppered and sealed. As usual one part of the sample was handed over to the petitioner, the second part was transmitted to the Public Analyst for analysis and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. The report of the Public Analyst indicated some variation regarding the ingredients of the oil, inasmuch as some mineral oil (quantity not mentioned) was noticed and the unsaponifiable matter was found to be 2.5 percent against a maximum prescribed standard of 1.5 percent. The petitioner was therefore, proceeded against under the Act. The Food Inspector, during the course of his examination, made a categorical statement that he bad purchased only 375 ml. of Cotton Seed Oil from the petitioner for the purpose of converting it into three parts of the sample. At the time when the question of framing of charge was under consideration, an argument was advanced before the trial Court that the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had not been complied with, in that there was nothing to show that the quantity of the oil sent to the Public Analyst was 125 grams or mow as provided in Entry No. 6 pertaining to edible oils. It appears that the trial Court involved a method to solve this mystery by sending for the part of the sample which was lying in possession of the Food Inspector and measuring its contents. By so doing, it was found that the net weight of the oil in the said sample bottle was 135 grams. The petitioner, however, dissatisfied with this procedure prayed that the contents of the sample be measured in terms of milliliters so as to have an idea about the correctness of assertion that 375 ml. of oil had been taken in possession. The trial Court refused to accede to this simple prayer, vide order dated May 6, 1976 (Copy Annexure VII), Thereafter, the petitioner made another prayer that the contents of the sample in his own possession may also be weighed, but once again the trial Court vide order dated May 7, 1976 (Copy Annexure VIII) declined to do so. Ultimately, by means of order dated May 10, 1976, the trial Court framed a charge against the petitioner.
(3.) THE guilty have to be punished, but this can be done only under the process of law by observing the mandatory formalities and procedure, as prescribed by the relevant statute. The sacrosanctity attached to the maxim "Everyone is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty". Is not merely for the benefit of the accused but is more for the observance of the Court. A fair trial presupposes that a person accused of an offence is to be afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, not necessarily with a view to prove his absolute innocence but even for the purpose of bringing on record the dubiety of the prosecution allegations as the law confers upon him a right to claim the benefit of all doubts in the matter. The second cardinal principle, in the same context is, that the Court is not called upon to derive adverse conclusion with predisposed notions about the guilt of the accused. A persual of the various orders pissed by the trial Court,, to which reference has been made above, and particularly the order dated May 10, 1971, indicates that the learned Magistrate lost light of both their principles.;