Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1334 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Uma Shankar

2006-11-23

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the State/appellant against the judgment of acquittal passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena in Criminal Case No. 118/95 dated 9.3.1999, by which the respondent was acquitted against the charge under section 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. In short the story of the prosecution is that on 28.4.1994 Food Inspector visited the shop of respondent and purchased sample of 'Khoa'. It was divided into three parts and one part was sent for Public Analyst. As per the report received from the Public Analyst, the sample was found adulterated. After sanction for prosecution, charge sheet was filed before the Court and the Court framed the charge against the respondent and after perusal of prosecution evidence he was acquitted by the trial Court. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with. 3. The finding of acquittal is challenged on the ground that the trial Court has wrongly held that Rules 17 and 18 were not complied with. The trial Court has not given any cogent reason. The article was sent for examination to Central Food Laboratory and the report indicates that the seized article of food was adulterated. 4. Heard the parties at length. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of R.C. Sharma, Food Inspector (PW 1), it is clear that on 1.5.1994 the sample was sent to Public Analyst. The document is Ex. P-6 and the receipt received from the Public Analyst is Ex. P-7 and P-8, therefore, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and also ignored the report of Central Food Laboratory. 5. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the Food Inspector has not proved the notification which authorizes him to inspect the area from where the article of Food was purchased for sample. Counsel for the respondent also submits that in this case the legal requirements as laid down in the Food Adulteration Act and rules were not followed by the prosecution. The impression seal was not proved and it is also not proved that form No. 7 was sent to the Public Analyst. It is also submitted that the article was purchased 28.4.1994. The impression seal was not proved and it is also not proved that form No. 7 was sent to the Public Analyst. It is also submitted that the article was purchased 28.4.1994. There is no evidence on record of the prosecution that from 29.4.1994 to 1.5.1994 where the sample was kept. He has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and it is argued that the report of the Public Analyst was received on 1.7.1994, which is Ex. P-9. 6. The trial Court in para No. 12 of the judgment observed that Form No. 7 and sample were not sent by registered post and the sample was sent through peon. The trial Court also observed in para No. 13 that the Food Inspector has not disclosed that alongwith the sealed container memorandum and specimen impression were also sent. The sample was handed over to peon on 29.4.1994, but no receipt has been produced regarding this effect. The sample reached to Bhopal on 1.5.1994, therefore, no explanation was given on behalf of the prosecution that where the sample was kept during this period. In para No. 14 it is also observed that the report of the Public Analyst was received in the office on 29.6.1994 and the charge sheet was filed in the Court on 24.1.1995. The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that the compliance of Rules 17 and 18 were not done by the prosecution which is a mandatory provision. Therefore, the possibility of tampering the sample cannot be ruled out. On this ground the trial Court found that the guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. 7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that complaint of Food Inspector is not duly proved and it is also submitted that there is violation of Rules 17 and 18. In this regard he relied on Raj Kiran v. State of M.P. reported in [1989 FAJ 12 SC], State of Orissa v. Rabindra Sahu [2006 FAJ 255 SC] and Sita Ram Mittal v. Roda reported in [2000 (2) FAC 88 MP). It is also submitted that mere oral statement in this regard is not I sufficient. It must be proved by documentary evidence. On this point he relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. reported in [ 2003 (II) MPWN 129 = 2003 (2) FAC 318]. 8. It is also submitted that mere oral statement in this regard is not I sufficient. It must be proved by documentary evidence. On this point he relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. reported in [ 2003 (II) MPWN 129 = 2003 (2) FAC 318]. 8. The next submission is that there is a delay in filing the complaint because the sample was taken on 28.4.1994 and it was sent to Public Analyst on 2.5.1994. The complaint was filed in the Court on 23.1.1995, i.e. after about nine months of taking the sample. He submits that the maximum life of sample could be six to eight months. When asked to verify whether there is any rule on this behalf it is submitted by the counsel that as per judicial pronouncement of the Court, this limit has been fixed. In support of the above contention he relied on MCD v. Ghisaram reported in [1975 (I) FAC 186 SC], Shivdayal v. State of M.P. reported in [ 1977 JLJ 506 = 1977 FAJ 356] and Ram Singh v. State of M.P. reported in [2005 (3) MPLJ MP 458]. Regarding delayed examination of Central Food Laboratory report it is submitted that the sample was examined by Central Food Laboratory on 11.8.1995 i.e. after 16 months of taking the sample. He has also challenged the finding on some other grounds, but trial Court merely acquitted the respondent on non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18 and, therefore, there is no need to discuss in detail these matters. 9. Counsel for the State submits that in view of various decisions it is clear that the statement of R.C. Sharma, Food Inspector (PW 1) it is clear that there was compliance of Rules 17 and 18 and the report of the Central Food Laboratory indicates that seized articles were adulterated, but no citations have been submitted before the Court. 10. In view of the above, it is clear that the Court has given cogent reasons for non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18. It cannot be said that the trial Court has given finding against the material on record. Respondent was acquitted by the trial Court. If against acquittal any appeal is filed on the basis that cogent reasons are not given, then finding can be set aside. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. It cannot be said that the trial Court has given finding against the material on record. Respondent was acquitted by the trial Court. If against acquittal any appeal is filed on the basis that cogent reasons are not given, then finding can be set aside. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.