1987 Supreme(Raj) 960
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, J.
Rajendra Alias Rajjan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 110 of 1984. (Against judgment dated 18.4.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur)
Decided On : 16-12-1987
For the Petitioner:M.M. Tiwari and S.K. Singh, Advocates.
For the State: L.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
A trial court has jurisdiction to try a case as a warrant case even though it should have been tried summarily under Section 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, if the accused does not show that any failure of justice has been occasioned by the trial court's failure to follow the summary procedure.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 16A - SECTION 16(1) - SECTION 20AA - SUMMARY TRIAL - JURISDICTION - SENTENCE - ADEQUATE AND SPECIAL REASONS - SUMMARY TRIAL NOT CONDUCTED - JURISDICTION NOT VITIATED - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT LESS THAN MINIMUM NOT PERMISSIBLE - CASE UNDER SECTION 16(1) (FIRST PROVISO) - ADEQUATE AND SPECIAL REASONS NOT FOUND - SENTENCE REDUCED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) for selling adulterated milk. The accused challenged the conviction on the grounds that the trial should have been conducted summarily under Section 16A of the Act, that the sentence was excessive, and that the case fell under the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the Act, which allowed for a reduced sentence in certain circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case as a warrant case even though it should have been tried summarily under Section 16A of the Act. The court also held that the sentence of one year's imprisonment was excessive and reduced it to six months' imprisonment. The court further held that the case did not fall under the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the Act, as there were no adequate and special reasons to impose a reduced sentence.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case as a warrant case even though it should have been tried summarily under Section 16A of the Act? 2. Whether the sentence of one year's imprisonment was excessive? 3. Whether the case fell under the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the Act, which allowed for a reduced sentence in certain circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case as a warrant case even though it should have been tried summarily under Section 16A of the Act because the accused did not show that any failure of justice had been occasioned by the trial court's failure to follow the summary procedure. 2. The court held that the sentence of one year's imprisonment was excessive because the accused had already undergone 85 days of imprisonment and the milk in question was found to contain only 53% added water. 3. The court held that the case did not fall under the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the Act because there were no adequate and special reasons to impose a reduced sentence.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition. The conviction of the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The accused was also entitled to the adjustment of the sentence already undergone by him.
JUDGMENT
1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur under his judgment dated April 18, 1984 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner both in respect of his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) as well as his sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said conviction was recorded and sentence was inflicted on the accused petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur under his judgment dated June 10, 1983.
2. Hari Dutt Sharma PW 1 was the Food Inspector, Bharatpur on May 7, 1981. On that day he saw that the accused-petitioner was carrying milk for the purposes of sale and near Dak bungalow, Bharatpur, he (Hari Dutt Sharma) introduced himself to the accused-petitioner and disclosed his identity as Food Inspector and purchased 660 ml. milk after paying its price. The sample was divided in three equal parts and was kept in three clean bottles and 18 drops of formaline was mixed in each bottle and they were sealed and were sent to local Health Officer for analysis. The sample reached to the Public Analyst on May 7, 1981, i.e., the same day it was taken from the accused petitioner. It was analysed by the Public Analyst and as per his report dated May 9, 1981 he found as under: | Fat contents | : 9.5% |
| Solid non-fats | : 4.0% |
| Starch | : Absent |
| Sugar | : Absent |
As per the report of the above Analysis the Public Analyst under his report dated May 9, 1981 came to the conclusion that the Sample of milk was adulterated due to its containing of about 53% of added water. After obtaining the consent under Section 20 of the Act for initiation prosecution against the petitioner, a complaint was tiled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the accused-petitioner, who pleaded not guilty to the charge On behalf of the prosecution the statement of Hari Dutt Sharma and Ramji Lal were recorded. Thereafter, the accused petitioner was examined under Section 313. Cr.PC to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He however, denied that any sample was taken from him. In answer to the last question the accused-petitioner came out with a plea that he does not sell the milk and he was taking the milk to his relation Shibbo because there was a programme of 'KATHA' in his house and he had be n invited there. According to him, he carried 5-7 kg. Milk. The accused examined two witnesses in his defence, namely, Shibbu and Vipti The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as already stated convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed.
3. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Section 16A of the Act the case could have been tried summarily but had not so been tried. It is also contended that if the law prescribes a particular procedure for trial of cases then the same procedure must be followed. It appears that such a plea was not raised before the trial court or before the appellate court. Be that as it may, there can be no dispute that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been authorised to try cases appears to have been tried by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter, though instead of trying the case summarily a procedure of warrant cases has been adopted, the question is whether in such case can it be said that trial can be held by the learned Magistrate without jurisdiction. Under Section 16A of the Act all offences under Sub-section (1) of sections 16 of the Act shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
