Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2719 (ALL)

Akhlesh Chandra v. State Of U. P.

2006-11-09

VINOD PRASAD

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—The revisionist Akhlesh Chandra was tried by the Munsif Magistrate VI Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) vide Criminal Case No. 735 of 1983, State v. Akhlesh Chandra. Finding the prosecution case proved against the revisionist, he was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act for six months’ R.1. and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months’ further R.1. vide judgment and order dated 13.2.1984. Aggrieved by his conviction the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, which was transferred to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge for disposal as criminal appeal No. 48 of 1984. The appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was affirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide his judgment and order dated 31.7.1985. Against the said conviction, the revisionist has filed the above noted revision in this Court, which was admitted on 29th August, 1985. The revisionist was granted bail and the realisation of fine awarded was also stayed. 2. The prosecution case against the revisionist was that on 6.11.1982 the sample of the buffalo milk was taken by Food Inspector, Bashir Ahmad Khan at 7.00 A.M. in KaY9mganj while the revisionist was selling buffalo milk. He purchased 660 ml. buffalo milk after paying Rs. 2/- for the same. He divided the sample into three parts, added 18 drops of formlin of 40 per cent strength in each of the three phials. He also observed the procedure for preparation of Form-6 (notice for taking of sample), Form 7 (impression of the seals). He also got signature of the person from whom he had taken the sample. He sent one phial of sample for analysis to the Public Analyist vide Ex. Ka-5. The report of the Public Analyist dated 21st February, 1983 found the sample to be adulterated, as the same was deficient up to 50 per cent in milk fat and 7 per cent in non-fatty a solids. This report is Ex Ka- 6. After obtaining sanction, vide Ex. Ka-5. The report of the Public Analyist dated 21st February, 1983 found the sample to be adulterated, as the same was deficient up to 50 per cent in milk fat and 7 per cent in non-fatty a solids. This report is Ex Ka- 6. After obtaining sanction, vide Ex. Ka-8, from the Chief Medical Officer/Local Health Authority, Farrukhabad dated 28th April 1983 he filed the complaint in the Court on the basis of which the revisionist accused was summoned and was tried and ultimately convicted as aforementioned. His appeal was also dismissed culminating in the present revision. 3. At the time for hearing of the revision it was detected that the trial Court record was not received in this Court even though the summoning of the trial Court record was ordered by this Court. It was informed that the same was weeded out. Consequently, reconstruction of the record was ordered by this Court. In pursuance of the said order, the reconstruction of the record was endeavoured and some papers were received from the office of C.M.O. vide his letter dated 9.4.1999 which included the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the copy of the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer/Local Health Authority dated 20.4.1983, the application of the Food Inspector for grant of sanction, the Public Analyist report dated 21.2.1983. Rest of the record of the case was not traced out and it was reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide his letter dated 16.4.1999 that it is not possible to reconstruct 4. The Counsel for revisionist submitted that the sample was not taken from the possession of the applicant and it has come in the judgment of the trial Court that on the papers prepared on the spot, the name of one person Ram Autar is mentioned and in none of the papers the name of the revisionist and his parentage is mentioned. He also submitted that no sample was taken from the applicant and there was no evidence that the applicant was selling adulterated food. 5. The learned AGA on the other hand submitted that both the Courts below have rejected this contention of the revisionist. 6. For judging the correctness of the submissions made by the Counsel for the revisionist, a perusal of the evidence was indispensable a necessity. 5. The learned AGA on the other hand submitted that both the Courts below have rejected this contention of the revisionist. 6. For judging the correctness of the submissions made by the Counsel for the revisionist, a perusal of the evidence was indispensable a necessity. Unfortunately, in the absence of the evidence recorded during the trial, which according to the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad dated 16.4.1999 is not available, it is not possible to judge the contention raised by the Counsel for the revisionist. This Court cannot examine the point raised by the Counsel for the revisionist and therefore, had got no option but to allow the revision and acquit the revisionist of the charges levelled against him. Moreso when the revision admitted and in the memo of revision this point was also 9 taken as ground No. 7 that the sample was taken from some other person Ram Autar son of Ram Chandra and not from the applicant. 7. In view of what has been said above, there is no other option for this Court but to acquit the revisionist of the charges levelled against him. 8. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail his bail bonds are Cancelled and sureties discharge. He need not surrender. Revision Allowed. ———