Dismissed

State v. Hitesh

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2017CRLLA/106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur condoned a delay of 1447 days in filing the State's leave to appeal. It then refused leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal of a shopkeeper under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, accepting the warranty defense against food adulteration charges.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is dismissed; the impugned judgment of acquittal is not interfered with.

State Vs Hitesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 106 / 2017

¶3

----Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Hitesh S/o Raman Lal Kalal, Owner of M/s Mahalaxmi Kirana Store, Kherwada, Distt. Udaipur, R/o Khandi Overi Tehsil Kherwara, Distt. Udaipur.

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vineet Jain.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

15/09/2017

¶11

The instant application for grant of leave preferred by the State of Rajasthan is delayed by 1447 days. An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by learned Public Prosecutor in which it is stated that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.7.2012 passed by the learned ACJM, Kherwara was inadvertently challenged by filing an appeal in the Sessions Court which was turned down on 26.3.2016 on the ground of being not maintainable. On these premises, a prayer has been made by the State of Rajasthan for condoning the delay occurred in filing of this leave to appeal application.

¶12

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as indicated from record, the delay of 1447 days occurred in filing of this leave to appeal application is condoned.

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLLA-106/2017]

¶15

The matter was heard on merits.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the Food Inspector, Udaipur conducted an inspection of the shop of the respondent Hitesh on 16.2.2010 and collected a sealed packet of refined Soyabin oil manufactured by G.P.Agro Pvt. Ltd., Kota for analysis. As per the report of Public Analyst, the sample of oil collected from the shop of the respondent did not conform to the requisite standards upon which a complaint came to be lodged against the respondent vendor Hitesh, the manufacturer G.P.Agro Pvt. Ltd. and its representative Virendra Shrivastava. Service of process issued against the manufacturer and its representative could not be effected on which they were declared absconding. However, the trial court by the impugned judgment dated 11.7.2012 proceeded to acquit the respondent Hitesh from the charge giving him benefit of warranty under Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration.

¶17

Having appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court has assigned cogent, convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent Hitesh from the charge under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The oil sample was collected in the original sealed plastic packing of the manufacturer. The vendor provided the bill of purchase to the Food Inspector. The food article was stored in a secured condition and as such, without any doubt the vendor was entitled to stake the claim of warranty against the manufacturer.

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CRLLA-106/2017]

¶20

The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.7.2012 does not suffer from any shortcoming either factual or legal so as to warrant interference therein.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant leave to appeal application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶22

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

¶23

/tarun goyal/

State v. Hitesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Hitesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjundan and Ors. Vs State

Luna Khan and Ors. Vs State

State Vs Vijaypal Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Choyal and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Dayal Singh Vs State and Anr.

Vishnu Vs State