Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 495 (UTT)

TILKA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2011-08-04

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.: This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1999 wherein the judgment and order passed by Special Magistrate/ACJM, Dehradun dated 1.2.1999 was confirmed. The said judgment was passed by the Magistrate in criminal complaint case no. 1252/1994, Food Inspector Vs. Tilka U/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter will be referred as the Act). The Magistrate convicted Sri Tilka u/s 7(1) r/w Section 16(1)(c) of the Act for the sentence of six months R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- fine. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo two months’ R.I. 2. I have gone through the grounds of revision and after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Brief Holder, I find that the grounds of revision as has been stated are quite shallow and stereotyped. No specific slackness or irregularity or inconsistency has been indicated in either of the five grounds raised in this revision. 3. The first ground is that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record. Firstly, this court of revision is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence of facts recorded by the Magistrate during trial. Besides it has not been mentioned as to in what manner the evidence has not been appreciated by the courts below. 4. It has been stated that the orders passed by the courts below are against the facts and circumstances of the case. This is a very vague ground and no finding can be given by this revisional court on such a vague allegation. 5. It has been stated that no offence u/s 7/16 of the Act is made out invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate for punishing the revisionist u/s 16(1)(c) of the Act. This provision envisages that whosoever prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by this Act, then he is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/-. This provision envisages that whosoever prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by this Act, then he is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/-. The Magistrate has imposed minimum punishment upon the revisionist, who on dated 21.8.1990 at about 7 PM did not allow the Food Inspector Swaraj Singh Yadav to take sample of the milk which he was selling at his dairy. Rather the revisionist snatched the container of milk from the hands of Swaraj Singh Yadav. Much more, the accused/revisionist refused to give the sample of the food himself at the asking of Swaraj Singh Yadav who was along with his companion another Food Inspector. Both have deposed these facts and proved the incident before the Magistrate. The defence of the accused/revisionist that he runs a dairy taming buffaloes and milch the milk from the buffaloes at 9 PM, is not believable because the date of incident is 21.8.1990 and in the last week of August, it is improbable to believe the version of accused/revisionist regarding the milching of the milk at 9 PM. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a precedent of Rajasthan High Court in the case of “Municipal Council, Jaipur Vs. Mangi Lal reported in 1978 Adulteration Journal Page 229”, wherein the said Court has observed that mere refusal to give sample to a Food Inspector would not amount to preventing to the Inspector from taking sample. This ruling is not attracted in the case in hand because this revisionist not only refused to give sample at the asking of the Food Inspector but when Food Inspector himself picked up the cane filled with milk in order to take sample then this accused snatched the container from the hands of the food inspector. 7. It has also been argued that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Here, this Court is of the view that multiplicity of the oral testimony of the witnesses is not required in such cases. It is more so for the reason that the consumers of the milk themselves do not remain interested in deposing against the vendor of the milk. 8. Here, this Court is of the view that multiplicity of the oral testimony of the witnesses is not required in such cases. It is more so for the reason that the consumers of the milk themselves do not remain interested in deposing against the vendor of the milk. 8. Next argument has been raised that no Form-6 notice was given to the revisionist. In such circumstances when the revisionist/accused was not only resisting the Food Inspector from taking the sample but also snatched the container from his hands and atmosphere of quarrel/commotion developed then it was not possible for the food inspector to issue Form-6 notice and procure the acknowledgment of the same from the accused/revisionist. 9. In view of the above, this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is dismissed. Let the lower court record be remitted to the court of the Magistrate for serving out the sentence by the accused/revisionist.