Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 568 (MP)

JAGDISH v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-04-21

S.S.KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J.—The petitioner who has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter 'Act') and ordered to suffer sentence of six months Rigorous Imprisonment (R. I.) and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further two months Rigorous Imprisonment, has filed the present revision petition u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 27-9-1983 Food Inspector, Shri K.P. Shrivastava (PW1) took sample of cow milk from the petitioner who was carrying it for sale. Food Inspector prepared the panchanama (P-4) and performed the necessary formalities and procedure with regard to the sample taken by him. One sample was sent for analysis to the public Analyst who found the sample to be adulterated and, hence the petitioner was prosecuted. The trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner, the petitioner abjured the guilt. Before the trial Court the prosecution examined only one witness Shri K.P. Shrivastava (PW1). After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the charges were found to be proved and it convicted the petitioner. 3. The appeal (11/93) preferred by the petitioner before the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25-10-1996, which is under challenge in this revision. 4. Heard Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Gangrade, Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the records. 5. Shri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not in accordance with the evidence on record. There is breach of mandatory requirement of Rule 16(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter 'Rules'), as there is delay in filing the prosecution and there is delay in sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, which caused prejudice to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that there is no error committed by the Courts below and the findings recorded are just, proper and legal and needs no interference. 6. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that there is no error committed by the Courts below and the findings recorded are just, proper and legal and needs no interference. It has also been contended by Shri Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State that no prejudice has caused to the petitioner by the so called delay, because the petitioner has exercised his right u/s 13(2) of the 'Act' and the report contains the fact that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the records of the courts below, in my view, the revision deserves to be allowed. 7. It is not disputed that the compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules, is mandatory. Rule 16(b) reads as under: "The bottle, jar or other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper shall be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive." (emphasis supplied). I have perused the panchanama (P-4) prepared by Shri K.P. Shrivastava (PW 1) and after going through it, I find there is complete omission as to mention about the thickness of the paper in which the bottles were wrapped, so as to comply the said rule in its true spirit, it was incumbent upon the Food Inspector to completely wrap the container of the sample in fairly strong thick paper, the ends of which should be nearly folded and this fact should find place in the panchanama. In view of this, the non-compliance of Rule 16(b) is apparent. 8. In the said premises, without going through the other grounds raised in this revision petition, I hold the conviction of the petitioner not sustainable and hence the judgment of the courts below are set aside. The revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the petitioner u/s 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is set aside. The bail bonds shall stand discharged, fine amount if deposited be refunded to the petitioner. Final Result : Allowed