IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Remanding a case for retrial requires extraordinary circumstances, rooted in preventing miscarriage of justice, and cannot merely be a remedy for prosecutorial deficiencies.

ORDER :

Alok Awasthi, J.

With the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally.

2. This Civil Revision is preferred under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by learned Principal District Judge & Appellate Tribunal under Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 District Neemuch whereby appeal was partly allowed, fine was set aside as well as the matter was remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate/Adjucating Officer, Neemuch for giving opportunity to produce documents.

3. The short facts leading to the present controversy, are that an inspection has been conducted by the Food Inspector at shop named as Vijay Agency, in front of Shiv Mandir, Neemuch where the various samples have been taken including pan parag which was sent to the Food analysts for checking the standard of the product and after found it as not standard, permission has been sought for starting prosecution as well as the said has been filled in which Ld. Additional District Neemuch has fined the petitioners of Rs. 1,00,000/- each vide order dt. 18.10.2021.

4. By challenging the aforesaid order petitioners had filed Civil Appeal vide RCA/60/2021 which was partly allowed vide order dated 08.07.2024 and the fine has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Ld. Additional District Magistrate/Adjudicating Officer considering that there are various flaws and faults in the Ld. Additional District Magistrate/ Adjudicating Officer order and procedures for which the benefits cannot be granted to the petitioners and though the matter has been remanded back with guidance to cure the faults and flaws.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that vide impugned order, directions were given to the trial Court, the same have not been complied with. The learned Appellate Court ought to have consider that there are flaws caused by the Adjudicating Officer and once the statements have not been admitted though the benefit must be availed to the petitioners. He also argued that the Adjudicating Officer has not complied with the law and procedure prescribed by the law due to which the petitioners failed to prove their case and the same has been admitted by learned Appellate Court too. Learned Appellate Court has also directed to produce the original copies of the photocopies and exhibits the same whereas such directions should not be granted in the appeal as the learned trial Court has guided the respondent which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further argued that the learned Appellate Court has not considered that Rule 46(4) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2006") petitioners right to appeal the food analysis report, has been violated and in light of that, no case has been made against the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the present revision be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2021.

6. On the contrary, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent opposed the prayer and contended that the appellate Court has passed the impugned order by appreciating each and every aspect of the case. Hence, the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. In the back drop of the rival submissions, the conundrum of the case is as to whether the order of Appellate Court remitting back the case to trial Court for taking original photographs, certified evidence letter by affording sufficient opportunities after conclusion of entire trial is incorrect in the eyes of law and facts ?

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the perusal of the order of learned Appellate Court, it is found that the prosecution has not produced the original panchnama dated 27.08.2018, original report of Food Analyst dated 08.05