1983 Supreme(Raj) 364
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.C.Jain, B.C.Agrawal, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Ram Dayal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 1973.
Decided On : 10-05-1983
Advocates:
For the Appellant: S. S. Bhandawat and Public Prosecutor.
For the accused-respondent:P. L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
The presumption of regularity of official acts arising from the recital contained in an order of sanction under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not rebutted by the mere fact that the order is in a printed form and does not appear to be filled in the hand of the sanctioning authority.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 20 - FOOD INSPECTOR - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - SECTION 7/16 - ADULTERATED MILK ICE CREAM - CONVICTION - APPEAL - DISCHARGE - REVISION - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a vendor of milk ice cream, was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act) for selling adulterated milk ice cream. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution. The State appealed, which was treated as a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of sanction passed by the sanctioning authority was valid as it contained an express recital that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case and had satisfied himself that a prima facie case existed for the alleged offender being put up before the Court. The Court further held that the presumption of regularity of official acts arising from the recital contained in the order of sanction was not rebutted by the circumstances brought on record by the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of sanction passed by the sanctioning authority was valid? 2. Whether the presumption of regularity of official acts arising from the recital contained in the order of sanction was rebutted by the circumstances brought on record by the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of sanction passed by the sanctioning authority was valid as it contained an express recital that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case and had satisfied himself that a prima facie case existed for the alleged offender being put up before the Court. The Court further held that the presumption of regularity of official acts arising from the recital contained in the order of sanction was not rebutted by the circumstances brought on record by the accused. 2. The Court held that the presumption of regularity of official acts arising from the recital contained in the order of sanction was not rebutted by the circumstances brought on record by the accused.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, which was treated as a revision petition, but took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and held that it would not be in the interest of justice to set aside the order of discharge passed by the Sessions Judge.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 25th April, 1973 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 110/72. By his judgment aforesaid, the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Ramdayal respondent against the judgment dated 10th November, 1972 passed by the Municipal Magistrate 1st Class, Jodhpur convicting the said respondent of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- and in the event of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent, quashed the proceedings and discharged the respondent.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent was a vendor of "Kulfi" (milk ice cream) in a hand, cart. The licence for sale of "Kulfi" was issued in the name of his brother Mohanlal. On 6th April, 1969, the respondent was selling kulfi near Stadium Cinema, Jodhpur, and Shri Chhattar Singh (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector purchased 600 gms, of milk ice cream from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3/- after informing the respondent that he was purchasing it for the purpose of having it tested. This sample of milk ice cream was divided into three equal parts and after adding necessary preservatives, the three parts were duly sealed in three separate bottles. One sealed bottle was handed over to the respondent and the other bottle containing the sample of milk ice cream was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur vide Memo Ex. P-3. From the report (Ex. P-4) received from the Public Analyst, it appeared that the sample of milk ice cream was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity and that the fat contents and the total solids were less than the prescribed quantity. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector Shri Chhattar Singh obtained the sanction of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, for filing the complaint and thereafter he filed a complaint against the respondent and the Mohanlal in the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Jodhpur and both the accused persons were tried for the offence under section 7/16 of the Act before the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined the Food Inspector, Shri Chhattar Singh (P. W. 1) and Majid Khan (P. W. 2), the attesting witness to the memo (Ex. P-1) prepared by the Food Inspector after purchasing the sample of the milk ice cream from the respondent, as well as the inventory form (Ex. P-2) prepared by him at the spot. The prosecution has also produced the memo (Ex. P-3) prepared by the Food Inspector, which was sent to the Public Analyst along with the sealed bottle containing the sample, the report (Ex. P-4) of the Public Analyst, the memo (Ex. P-5) prepared by the Food Inspector after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst and the order (Ex. P-6) passed by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Jodhpur granting sanction for filing of complaint against the respondent. The respondent in his statement recorded under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code denied that he was selling milk ice cream and he denied that the sample of milk ice cream was taken in his presence and has stated that the memos were not prepared at the spot but were prepared separately.
4. The Municipal Magistrate by his judgment dated 10th November, 1972 held that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was established that the Food Inspector Shri Chhattar Singh had purchased sample of milk ice cream from the respondent and that the said sample was divided into three parts and was put in three bottles which were duly sealed and that one of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur for
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
