- (1.) Heard. The petitioner having been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act had filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The appeal was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (FT) , Rajsamand for, hearing by order dated 19.6.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge whilst allowing the appeal filed by the accused on a technical ground i.e. report of the Central Food Laboratory was not put to accused in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, proceeded to remand the matter back to the trial court for re-examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC in regards to the report of Central Food Laboratory and then for the decision of the case again. Assailing the said order, the accused has approached this court by way of this revision.
(2.) Assailing the order dated 19.6.2006, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non-putting the report of Central Food Laboratory to the accused clearly amounted to an illegality in trial and the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to permit the said lacuna to be filled in by remanding the matter to the trial Judge. It is submitted, that the learned appellate Judge should have acquitted the accused instead of remanding the matter to the trial court.
(3.) Per contra, learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment of the appellate Judge and has submitted that the appellate Judge was perfectly justified in remanding the matter back. It has been submitted that the accused could not be given the benefit of technical lapse occasioned by non-putting of the report of the Central Food Laboratory in the statements under Section 313 CrPC.;