Nihal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Nihal Chand vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition Allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 18, 1986

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758459

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758459
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Farooq Hasan, J.
Decided On: Jan 18, 1986
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Revision No. 21 of 1980
Subject: Food Adulteration;Criminal
Disposition: Petition Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1964 - Sections 7/16--Food Inspector was authorized to file complaint--Complaint filed by APP--Held, proceedings are vitiated and conviction is bad in law.;The Food-Inspector was authorized by the Collector, Tonk to file the complaint but the same has not been filed by the Food-I...

Key legal issue: Food Adulteration;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nihal Chand

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: and State of Rajasthan v. Jainarain and State of Rajasthan
Reported In: 1989WLN(UC)508

Excerpt

.....filed by the food-inspector, but was filed by app of the court.;the proceedings taken against the accused-petitioner were not according to law and as such the trial is vitiated, and the conviction based on such a trial can be held to be bad in law.;revision accepted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 4. i have gone through the judgment of this court dated 9-1-1986, and am of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision of this court, as well as by the decision taken in the case dalia v. in these circumstances, the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner were not according to law and as such the trial is vitiated, and the conviction based on such a trial can be bad in law......tonk, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence by the chief judicial magistrate, tonk. the petitioner was found guilty under section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act by the chief judicial magistrate.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that shri kutubuddin khan food inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner on 18-12-1676 and he took the sample of til oil weighing 375 grams for rs. 3.00 from nihal chand accused petitioner. after observing necessary formalities in the presence of motbir, the sample was sealed and sent to the public analyst, as is required tinder the food adulteration act. ex. p 5 report was received from the public analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated. necessary sanction for filing the complaint was obtained vide ex p 6, which was given if favour of shri kutubuddin food inspector. a complaint was filed in the court of chief judicial magistrate by the app of the court on 22-4-1977. the case was subsequently conducted by the app of the court. after completing the trial, the learned chief judicial magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty. aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the sessions judge, tonk, which was partly accepted. hence the revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned sessions judge dated 30-1-1980.3. learned counsel for the accused-petitioner at the very outset raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in the instant case the food inspector was authorized by the collector, tonk to file the complaint, but the same has not been filed by the food inspector, but was filed by the app of the court. the proceedings were also conducted in the court of cjm by the app of the court. learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in amolak chand v. the state decision on 9-1-1986 and submitted that the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner are ab initio void and the trial is.....

Full Judgment

Farooq Hasan, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Kutubuddin Khan Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner on 18-12-1676 and he took the sample of Til Oil weighing 375 Grams for Rs. 3.00 from Nihal Chand accused petitioner. After observing necessary formalities in the presence of motbir, the sample was sealed and sent to the Public Analyst, as is required tinder the Food Adulteration Act. Ex. P 5 report was received from the Public Analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated. Necessary sanction for filing the complaint was obtained vide Ex P 6, which was given if favour of Shri Kutubuddin Food Inspector. A complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the APP of the Court on 22-4-1977. The case was subsequently conducted by the APP of the Court. After completing the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was partly accepted. Hence the revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 30-1-1980.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner at the very outset raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in the instant case the Food Inspector was authorized by the Collector, Tonk to file the complaint, but the same has not been filed by the Food Inspector, but was filed by the APP of the Court. The proceedings were also conducted in the Court of CJM by the APP of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Amolak Chand v. The State decision on 9-1-1986 and submitted that the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner are ab initio void and the trial is vitiated because of the said defect. Learned Public Prosecutor admits the position, as aforesaid.

4. I have gone through the judgment of this court dated 9-1-1986, and am of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision of this court, as well as by the decision taken in the case Dalia v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Revision No. 159/78) decided on 29-11-1982 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, and State of Rajasthan v. Jainarain and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal 1984 RCC 28. In the said decision, it has been held that where a complaint under the Food Adulteration Act is filed by an unauthorized person, the trial stands vitiated and no conviction can be recorded on such a trial. In these circumstances, the proceedings taken against the accused petitioner were not according to law and as such the trial is vitiated, and the conviction based on such a trial can be bad in law.

5. I, therefore, accept this revision, set aside the order of convicted passed by the learned CJM, Tonk, which has been maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk. The accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail bonds are discharged. Fine if paid shall be refunded forthwith.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1986 Same Parties Nihal Chand vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Food Adulteration;Criminal Same Judge Farooq Hasan, J.

Food Adulteration;Criminal