N.B. WANJARI, FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAM PRASAD CHOURASIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order in this revision will equally dispose of the connected Misc. Criminal Case No. 588 of 1979. The first is against the order of discharge of the non-applicants accused and the other is for expunging the uncalled for remarks, against the applicant viz. Food Inspector Wanjari in the trial Court's order of discharge.

(2.) Wanjari, Food Inspector of the Central Railway, who had taken the sample of chillies on 21-9-78 from the Stall No. 1 and its store room belonging to M/s. Sahni & Co., had filed the complaint in the Court of Magistrate First Class Katni under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against one Ram Prasad Chaurasia, who, at the relevant time, was incharge of the stall and also against Karamvir Sabharwal, who was the manager, in overall charge, control and administration of the stall. Complaint for prosecution rested on the premise that the sample of chillies, on being examined by the public analyst, was found to be adulterated. The statement of the complainant Food Inspector Wanjari was recorded before the stage of framing of the charges,'in accordance with Sec. 244 of the Cr. P.C., 1973. The Trial Magistrate, after considering evidence of the Food Inspector, discharged the accused persons on several grounds. One ground was that there was no proof that the non-applicants accused were actually incharge of the stall at the relevant time. The other ground was that there was no proof that the stall and so also the store room, wherefrom the sample had been taken, was included in the railway premises, with respect to which only, the Food Inspector of the Central Railway had jurisdiction. The third ground was that there was non-compliance of the Rules 7 and 18 of the P.F.A. Rules Another ground taken was that there was breach of section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, inasmuch as, two local witnesses had not been called at the time of taking of the sample. The fact, that the adulterated chillies were injurious to health, being without any proof, was equally made the ground for discharge. The report of the Public Analyst of the State Laboratory, Bhopal was also stated to be of no value in the absence of Notification, giving the requisite authority to the State Laboratory to analyse the sample of a place, within Jabalpur District. Finally, the Food Inspector Wanjari, in view of his past conduct being held to be a dishonest and false witness, his averment alone was not enough to justify the framing of the charge It is against this order of discharge that the present revision has been filed The Food Inspector Wanjari, by preferring the connected revision, has prayed for expunging the uncalled for and unjustified remarks against him in the order of discharge.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate appearing for the applicant Food Inspector has vehemently urged before me that the order of the discharge is prima facie perverse, inasmuch as the trial Magistrate has traversed beyond his powers in evaluating the whole evidence, on merits, at the preliminary stage and in making damaging comments without justification, against the Food Inspector Wanjari.