It is the duty of the Magistrate to summon the witnesses for further cross-examination and to take coercive steps for their attendance if they fail to appear.

CHANDRA PRAKASH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Main-puri against the order dated 22-8-1972 of Sri S. N. Gupta, acquitting Raja Ram respondent of the charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Raja Ram was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the complaint of the Food Inspector B. N. Lal. The allegations in the complaint were that the respondent on 25-11-1971 at about 9-30 A. M. was found exposing adulterated she-buffalo milk for sale at his shop at Agra Road in Mainpuri town, The complaint was dated 24-2-1972 and reached the court below on 6-5-1972. The respondent was summoned for 5-61972. On that date the respondent was bailed out end he was supplied copies of the documents on which the prosecution relied. June 19, 1972 was then fixed for evidence in the case. On that date B. N. Lal, Food Inspector was examined under Section 256, Cri. P. C. and the case was adjourned to 3-7-1972. On this date the Presiding Officer was absent and the case was adjourned to 6-7-1972. On this date the statement of the respondent was recorded and the charge was framed against him. The case was then adjourned to 24-7-1972 for further evidence under Section 256, Cri. P. C. On that date B. N. Lal. Food Inspector, was summoned for further cross-examination for which 7-81972 was fixed. It was further directed that the Food Inspector should also bring other witnesses on 7-8-1972. On that date the Presiding Officer was absent and the case was adjourned to 21-8-1972. On this date the Food Inspector and the witnesses did not appear and the court below fixed 22-8-1972 for pronouncing the judgment. The judgment was accordingly pronounced on 22-8-1972 and the respondent was acquitted.

( 3 ) IT will, thus, be seen that the charge against the respondent was framed on 6-7-1972 and 24-7-1972 was fixed for further evidence under Section 256, Cri, P. C. On that date B. N. Lal the Food Inspector had been transferred and at the instance of the prosecution the date was changed to 7-8-1972 for which date B. N. Lal was ordered to be summoned.

( 4 ) THE procedure adopted by the court below was the one prescribed for the trial of warrant cases and this procedure was rightly followed by the court below. Under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code warrant case means a case relating to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding one year. The offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is punishable with a term of imprisonment which may extend to six years. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, perfectly correct in following the procedure prescribed for the trial of the warrant cases. The charge against the respondent was framed on 6-7-1972. After the charge was framed it was the duty of the Magistrate him-self to summon the witnesses for further cross-examination. No undertaking was given by the Food Inspector on 6-7-1972 that he would bring the prosecution witnesses himself. As a matter of fact when the charge is framed the duty of the complaint finishes and it is for the court to summon the witnesses for cross-examinatlon and to take coercive steps for their attendance if the witnesses fail to appear. It has been held by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2104 of 1968; Salik Singh v. Ram Prasad reported in 1970 All WR (HC) 767 as under:

In warrant case the duty lies on the Magistrate to secure the attendance of the complaint and his witnesses for further cross-examination. In the instant case after framing of the charge against the accused persons 12th July, 1968 was the date fixed for further cross-examination. The record does not show that the complaint had volunteered to bring his witnesses for further cross-examination. It was, therefore, the duty of the Magistrate to summon the witnesses for further cross-examination that day. No such action was taken by the Magistrat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document