Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shrirang Dattatraya Wattamwar, proprietor of M/s. Arun Products, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded on 17th February 1995 for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had collected a sample of turmeric powder from his firm on 21st June 1991, which was found adulterated. The applicant was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000. He appealed to the Sessions Court, Nanded, arguing that the circumstances used against him were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. The Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal on 3rd February 2001, finding non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC, and remanded the matter for retrial. The applicant then filed a criminal revision application before the High Court challenging the remand order. The High Court held that the Sessions Judge correctly rejected the contention that non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC vitiates the entire prosecution. The defect is curable by a retrial, and the remand order was proper. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 CrPC - Non-compliance - Remand for retrial - The Sessions Judge found that the circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution case were not put to him when his statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded - The court held that non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC does not vitiate the entire prosecution but warrants a retrial - The Sessions Judge rightly rejected the contention that the prosecution was vitiated and directed retrial (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiates the entire prosecution and whether the Sessions Judge was justified in remanding the matter for retrial instead of acquitting the accused.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the order of the Sessions Judge remanding the matter for retrial due to non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC.
Law Points
- Non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC does not vitiate entire prosecution
- Remand for retrial is proper remedy
- Section 313 CrPC mandatory but defect curable by retrial
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 37
Criminal Revision Application No.63 of 2001
Mr. N.S. Chdudhary for the Applicant, Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra
Shrirang s/o Dattatraya Wattamwar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against order of Sessions Judge remanding matter for retrial due to non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to challenge the order of remand and sought acquittal or setting aside of the conviction.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for food adulteration and sentenced to imprisonment and fine; on appeal, the Sessions Judge found non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC and remanded for retrial; the applicant filed revision against the remand order.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant on 17th February 1995; the Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal on 3rd February 2001 and remanded for retrial.
Issues
Whether non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC vitiates the entire prosecution?
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in remanding the matter for retrial?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC vitiates the entire prosecution and he should be acquitted.
The State supported the remand order as proper.
Ratio Decidendi
Non-compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not vitiate the entire prosecution; the defect is curable by a retrial. The Sessions Judge rightly rejected the contention that the prosecution was vitiated and properly directed retrial.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Sessions Judge in my view has rightly rejected the contention on behalf of the present applicant that for non compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, entire prosecution was vitiated.
The learned Sessions Judge, partly allowed the Cri.Revn. Appln. and directed re-trial.
Procedural History
On 21st June 1991, sample of turmeric powder collected from applicant's firm. Complaint filed in CJM court, Nanded as RCC No.667/1991. On 17th February 1995, CJM convicted applicant. Applicant appealed to Sessions Court, Nanded (Cri.Appeal No.29/1995). On 3rd February 2001, Sessions Judge partly allowed appeal and remanded for retrial. Applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No.63/2001 in High Court. On 8th July 2014, High Court dismissed revision.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(v), 16(1)(a)(i), 14(A)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules: 44(h)
