Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 310 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. PRADEEP AGARWAL

2012-06-21

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.1.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 121/2000, State v. Pradeep Agarwal. The learned trial court after the trial of the accused Pradeep Agarwal for the offences under Section 272 and 273 IPC pertaining to PS Dalanwala did not find any guilt on the part of the accused and passed the judgment and order impugned in this appeal. Feeling disgruntled, State has filed this appeal. 2. Facts, in brief, are that on 18.5.1999 at 5 pm, Food Inspector A.K. Sharma took the sample of mixed milk of cow and buffalo from the dairy of the accused Pradeep Agarwal in Dehradun city after adopting the procedure as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). He sent the sample on 18.5.1999 itself to the Public Analyst for the analysis of its contents. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. A-1 dated 2.7.1999 reported that the sample had the presence of urea which was prohibited under Rule 44(L) of the Act. After receiving this report from the laboratory of the Public Analyst, an FIR was lodged at the instance of superior officers by Mr. A.K. Sharma on 9.7.1999 at PS Dalanwala, Dehradun. The investigation culminated into the submission of the chargesheet Ex. A-7 dated 28.10.1999, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on 9.3.2000. Charges were levelled for the offences under Section 272/273 IPC, as per the chargesheet submitted against Mr. Pradeep Agarwal and the trial was proceeded. Trial being a session one in nature was proceeded in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has recorded his finding that accused is not guilty and acquitted him. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused respondent that learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused because the report of the Public Analyst Ex. A-1 is silent about the percentage of the urea so that to divulge the prohibited quantity of the chemical in the milk. The Public Analyst has simply stated that the presence of urea in the sample was found, but he has not stated as to what percentage of that urea was present in the milk. 4. A-1 is silent about the percentage of the urea so that to divulge the prohibited quantity of the chemical in the milk. The Public Analyst has simply stated that the presence of urea in the sample was found, but he has not stated as to what percentage of that urea was present in the milk. 4. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards another report of the Public Analyst regarding some other sample pertained to another accused of Muzzafarnagar where the Public Analyst has clearly reported the prohibited percentage of the presence of urea in the sample of milk sent for the analysis. Besides while this Public Analyst Dr. S.C. Tiwari, who has given this report Ex. A-1, was examined in the court below, he has accepted this lapse on his part while analyzing the sample taken by the Food Inspector from Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. PW1 Dr. S.C. Tiwari has categorically stated that he did not write the percentage of prohibited urea in the sample of milk, while he himself admits that urea is a necessary ingredient of milk. 5. So, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that no offence could have been made out against Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. In addition, it has been further argued that as per Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the offence of food adulteration is allegedly made out, then the same could be investigated, enquired into and tried by the court subject to the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and not under the IPC. The Food Inspector did not provide any opportunity to the accused respondent to avail his rights, which have been made available to him in the sundry provisions of the Act regarding the sample taken from his dairy. In the Act, he had every right to send another sample for the Central Forensic Laboratory. But that he could not avail this opportunity because no report of the sample as given by Mr. S.C. Tiwari was made available to Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. This was a patent infringement of the right, which has been conferred by the Act to Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the Court finds that there is no error in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed. This was a patent infringement of the right, which has been conferred by the Act to Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the Court finds that there is no error in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed. Instant Government Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 17.1.2001 is hereby upheld. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court. Lower court record be also sent back.