Honble YADAV, J. –Accused-petitioner Vijay Raj is facing trial in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2). The case against the accused-petitioner as disclosed in the petition, was registered on the complaint of one Shyam Sunder, Food Inspector. The sample of Chillies powder was taken on 29th July, 1989, which after analysis by the Public Analyst was found not conforming to the prescribed standard of purity.

(3). The complainant examined himself on 5th January, 1995 and thereafter, the case was posted for arguments and charges. The charge was framed on 8th August, 1995 and thereafter, the complainant produced his further evidence. The complainant closed his evidence and accused-petitioner was examined under Sec.313, Cr.P.C. He was asked to produce his defence.

(4). On 19th August, 1995, the accused-petitioner moved an application to the court under Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta in his defence under Sec.247 read with Sec.243(2), Cr.P.C.

(5). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.8.95 rejected the aforesaid application of the accused-petitioner on the ground , inter alia, that he could have sent the sample of article of food for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the report of Public Analyst.

(6). Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur on 22.8.95, the accused-petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jodhpur which was dismissed on 17.11.95 after hearing both the parties. (7). Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by both the courts-below, the accused-petitioner has filed the present petition solely on the ground that both the courts-below have erred in rejecting his application to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta in his defence as contemplated under Sec.247 read with Sec.243, Cr.P.C. According to the accused-petitioner, he is at liberty to lead defence evidence by procuring a report from the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta to rebut the prosecution case. Learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was bound to call for any document in defence and his denial tantamount to negation of right to lead evidence in defence.

(8). I have heard learned counsel Mr. P.N. Mohanani appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner at length and perused the orders impugned.

(9). It is urged before me by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that it is a basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence which has been incorporated under Sec.247 read with Sec.243, Cr.P.C that an accused is entitled to every opportunity to meet the prosecution and prove his innocence. Therefore, according to him, in a complaint case filed under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, an accused would be at liberty to claim that sample kept with the Local (Health) Authority be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. According to Mr. P.N.Mohanani, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, denial of chance to adduce evidence in defence for incorrect reasons in the present case amounts flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions contemplated under Sec. 243(2) , Cr.P.C. According to Mr.P.N.Mohanani, the orders impugned passed by both the courts-below tantamount scuttling the defence evidence on filmsy ground.

(10). In support of his aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Joga Ram v. State (1). Since the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition are of general importance, therefore, I propose to deal with these questions in detail at admission stage.

(11

Click Here to Read the rest of this document