Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State ( Nct Of Delhi) vs Sh. Y. N. Mathur on 2 August, 2011

IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 
                    JUDGE­01, NORTH, DELHI.
 
Crl. Rev. No. 39/2011
FIR No.188/98
U/s 272/324 IPC
P.S.: Bara Hindu Rao 
Case ID No.02401R0177582011
Concerned Court/Successor Court: 
Ms. Sugandha Aggarwal, Ld. MM,
Delhi.

In the matter of:

State ( NCT of Delhi)

                                                                  ........Petitioner
             Versus

1.           Sh. Y. N. Mathur
             S/o B. N. Mathur
             R/o 128 Deep Vihar, Panchawala Siri Road,
             Jaipur.

2.           Sh. S. R. Singla
             S/o Sh. P. L. Singla
             R/o D­ 3/34 Paschim Vihar, Delhi.        
                                                          ..............Respondents

                                         O R D E R

1. The state has preferred this revision against the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by Ld.MM wherein Ld.MM discharged both the Crl. Rev. No. 39/2011 respondents for the offence u/s 272/324 IPC in case FIR No. 188/98 of PS Bara Hindu Rao.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant and his family members suffered simple injury and illness due to consumption of adulterated mustard oil which was purchased from accused Kali Charan. On investigation, it was found that the said mustard oil was being manufactured by ROM Industries. Respondent no.1 is the Quality Controller and respondent no.2 is the Chairman and Joint Director in the aforesaid company. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filedagainst both the respondents and at the time of framing of charge, Ld.MM discharged both these respondents. It is against this order of discharge that the present revision has been filed by the State.

3. After filing of the revision, notices were issued to both the respondents and trial court record was summoned. Both the respondents appeared and contested the present revision.

4. I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsels for both the respondents and have carefully perused the record.

5. Perusal of trial court record shows that mustard oil collected from complainant was sent to laboratory for testing and as per the report, the present of argemone oil was found in the said sample. Sample was also collected from the industry of the respondents and was sent to Central Food Laboratory for examination and the presence of argemone oil was found negative. Further as per the report, the presence of all the Crl. Rev. No. 39/2011 other substances was negative. But as the mustard oil did not match the quality standards laid down therefore, the opinion was given that it was adultered. However no substance was found in sample to render it noxious. The mustard oil was not purchased by the complainant from the accused persons. As per the case of the prosecution, the mustard oil was manufactured by ROM Industries being run by respondent no.1 who is Quality Controller and respondent no.2 who is Chairman and Joint Director of the said company. The sample was collected not only from shop of accused Kali Charan who is retailer from whose shop the complainant purchased the mustard oil but also from the factory of both the respondents. The comparison of both these reports shows that after the mustard oil was manufactured from the company of both the respondents, there was further adulteration in the said mustard oil. After the manufacturing of the mustard oil, it is not ascertained whether the whole­seller or the retailer adulterated the same, then how the respondents can be held responsible for the same. The whole­seller in the present case could not be traced. Ld. MM has rightly held that as the sample from the factory of the accused persons is negative, therefore, there is no prima facie sufficient material that the respondents have adulterated the mustard oil. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for the same and in such circumstances Ld. MM has rightly discharged both the accused persons. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Ld. MM.

Crl. Rev. No. 39/2011

6. In view of abovesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the State is dismissed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by Ld.MM. Same is, therefore, upheld. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room.

(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge­01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Announced in the open court on 02.8. 2011.

Crl. Rev. No. 39/2011