State of H.P. vs Ramesh Kumar Verma and Another

Bhawani Singh, J.—By order dated 2-8-1989, accused Ramesh Kumar Verma has been discharged by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, in case No. 31/3 of 1987 for an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter the Act).

Food Inspector Sh. H.L. Pathak visited the premises of the accused in Chail on 11-4-1985. After disclosing his identity, served notice upon the accused expressing his intention of taking a sample. The accused not only refused to accept it but also did not sign it. He did not accept the price when the Food Inspector tried to lift the sample. His hand was caught and rowdyism created. The whole occurrence was witnessed by Shri Puran Singh who was accompanying the Food Inspector. After completing the legal requirements, the case was filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judical Magistrate, Kandaghat, who has dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused holding that the Food Inspector had no legal authority to launch the prosecution against the accused. The trial Court placed reliance on In Re: T.C. Nichodemus, , and permitted the accused to raise preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case and then passed the order of discharge following the decision of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 432/85, M/s Associated Distilleries Private Limited Hisarvs. State of H.P. decided on 12-6-1989. ILR 1989 HP 538 In this case, it has been held that ''alcoholic beverage is not an article of food''. The same is consumed as an intoxicant and not as a food speciality. The trial Court may have relevantly decided the case in accordance with the decision since it held the field till 21-8-1990. But this decision is no longer a good law in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of H.P. v. Raja Ram and Anr. 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 273 decided on 22nd August, 1990, holding that wide definition has to be given to "food" as defined u/s 2(v) of the Act, therefore, any article which is used as "food" or "drink" for human consumption (other than drug and water) should be covered by it. Absence of any standard being prescribed in the Rules for liquor (including country liquor) cannot be legitimately held to be a reason for excluding it from the category of food. Prescription of a standard may have relevance to the offence of adulteration of an article of Food. Absence of any standard being prescribed in the Rules for ''liquor'' (including ''country liquor'') cannot, therefore, be legitimately held to be a reason for excluding it from the category of ''food''. Therefore, the order of discharge passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and is, therefore, set-aside.

In para-31 of Raja Ram''s case (supra), the Division Bench, while considering the question whether the accused be required to face the fresh trial, said that:

"31. In the view that we have taken, it is clear that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, challenged in the present case, is unsustainable on the ground on which it has been passed. However, we are inclined to the view that Respondents Raja Ram and Malik Ram be not required to face a fresh trial in the present case for the reason, firstly, that the position of law in regard to their culpability was some what in doubt and, secondly, that the offence for which they were brought to trial took place over four years back on February 27, 1986. The circumstances of the present case do not justify an order for retrial. We, therefore decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate".

The present case was initiated on 11-4-1985. A period of more than 9 years has passed. It would not be proper to direct the trial of the accused afresh after such a long time. Accordingly, a direction for retrial is not given and the matter is ordered to be closed.

Order accordingly.