Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 Date of Decision: 14.2.2008. Suresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mr. Gupta at outset has stated that he will confine his argument to the grave impropriety committed by the trial Court in recording statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has annexed the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C as Annexure P1. The entire statement is reproduced below:- “Statement of accused Suresh s/o Dewan Chand, aged 22 years, occupation agriculturist, r/o Nakhatia – W.O. Q. it is in evidence against you that on 18.8.90 at 10 A.M. FI Teja Singh and Dr. Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 2 S.P. Mimani were taking samples of milk on Bighar Turning, Fatehabad. At that time, you were bringing 2 drums of milk for sale on a motor cycle. The FI stopped you and after giving his introduction, he inspected the milk. You were bringing two drums each containing 30/30 Kg. of Cow's milk for sale. FI gave you notice Ex.P.A. And expressed his desire to take sample. The milk was properly stirred and therefrom 750 ml. of milk was purchased for Rs.3/- vide receipt Ex.PB. The purchased milk was equally put in three dry and clean bottles. 20/20 drops of formaline 40% were added in each bottle as preservative. The bottles were made air tight and strong khaki paper was wrapped around their necks which was fastened with string and each bottle was sealed on its neck with the seal of Dr.S.P.Mimani. Spot memo Ex.P.C. Was prepared on the spot and labels Ex.PC/1 were passed on each bottle. The bottles were separately wrapped in khaki papers and both ends of papers were passed on the bottles. Paper slips were pasted from top to bottom with Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 3 gum. Each bottle was fastened with a string and one seal of Dr.S.P.Mimani was fixed. Four seals of FI were affixed. Your signatures were taken on each bottle in a manner that half thereof appeared on the paper slips and the remaining half on the khaki paper. Memos Ex.PA to Ex.PC were prepared on the spot and your signatures were taken on them. These were attested by Dr.S.P.Mimani. Some persons got collected at the time of sampling but nobody was ready to become witness. 5 copies of form VII were prepared on the spot and sample impressions of the seals used were taken thereon. One sealed bottle of sample and one copy of form VII were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed cover through railway parcel. Written intimation about the sending of sample for analysis was sent by the FI to the LHA. One copy of form VII along with the railway receipt was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately through registered post. The postal receipt is Ex.PD. Two sealed bottles of sample and two copies of Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 4 form VII were deposited with LHA in a sealed packet. Report of analysis Ex.PE was received by the FI from LHA according to which the sample was found to be adulterated and therefore, complaint Ex.PF against you was filed in the Court. Written intimation was given to LHA so that proceedings under Section 13 (2) could be initiated. LHA Fatehabad sent a copy of the report along with forwarding letter through registered post on your address on receipt of which you moved application in the Court for sending the second bottle for analysis to the CFL Mysore upon which second sample was sent to CFL Mysore for test. According to whose report also the sample was found to be adulterated. That report is Ex.PG. Ans. It is wrong. Q. Why this case against you? Ans. The case is false. Q. Why the witnesses depose against you? Ans. Witnesses are deposing falsely. Q. Do you want to say anything else? Ans. I had told the FI on the spot that I do not sell milk and that the milk was being taken Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 5 to a known person in connection with a party. Q. Would you produce evidence in defence? Ans. Yes, Sir. Sd/- Sub Div. Judicial Magistrate, RO & AC. Fatehabad. 6.11.1992. Sd/-Suresh Kumar (in Hindi)” Except for the last four questions, which are formal in nature, entire incriminating circumstances have been put to the accused in one para running into about two pages. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that the proper way of questioning the accused is to put before him one by one all the vital and salient points in the evidence that go against him in short sentences in easily understandable language. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by Mr. Gupta that grave prejudice has been caused to the accused. Recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. It is solemn function of the Court to put each and every incriminating circumstance to the accused so that he is able to understand what is against him and he can give his response to what has been gathered by the prosecution against him. Recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in a mechanical manner is to negate the very spirit of the section. The legislature in its wisdom has stated that incriminating circumstance should be put to the accused in his own language. The spirit of the section is that no accused is deprived from understanding what is the Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 6 case against him. The system which we have inherited has a British legacy where the accused is represented by a counsel, the legislature could have dispensed recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. but legislature in its wisdom has thought that accused should be made aware of the incriminating circumstance. The approach and the manner adopted by the trial Court cannot be accepted. Prejudice to the accused is writ large. Mr. Gupta has further brought to my notice that even in a lengthy question where all details have been put to the accused, very material and vital incriminating circumstance i.e. extent of adulteration found by Public Analyst has not been put to the accused. He has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Kuldip Kumar v. State of Punjab 1995 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 47. He has further relied on another judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab 1993 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 396 wherein also the accused was not put the extent of adulteration during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as found by Public Analyst. Taking that into account, to be prejudice in that case, the accused was acquitted in those cases Having accepted the legal submissions of Mr. Gupta, it will be appropriate that facts of the case are also put on the record. Case of prosecution is that on 18.8.1990, Government Food Inspector accompanied by officials of Health Department intercepted the petitioner and from the two drums which contained 30 Kgs. of Cow milk, 750 gms. of milk was purchased on payment of Rs.3/-. It is stated that the procedure regarding taking of sample was followed. After the report Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995 7 of Public Analyst, the milk was found deficient as the milk fat was found below minimum prescribed standard of 4%. Since in this case, I have accepted the legal submissions of Mr. Gupta and held that grave prejudice was caused to the accused as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not in consonance with the requirement of law. After more than 17 years of the occurrence when the right of speedy trial vest in the accused I find no reason to remand the matter and for the discussions detailed above, the present petitioner is acquitted of the charges. The fine, if any deposited, be reimbursed to the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 14, 2008 “DK”