Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 149 (ALL)

Lalit Kumar @ Lalloo Prasad v. State of U. P.

2019-01-19

VIRENDRA KUMAR II

body2019
JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar-II, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None is responding on behalf of the revisionist. Neither any request for passing over nor any adjournment slip has been received. Learned A.G.A. is present. 3. On 13.12.2018 this Court has passed the following order: "The case is adjourned on the illness slip of Sri Mustafa Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist. List after three weeks. However perusal of various orders passed in this revision shows that too many adjournments have been sought by revisionist and granted by this Court and many orders have been passed clearly stipulating that in case any adjournment is sought on the next date of listing, the Court may consider for cancellation of bail or issuance of non-bailable warrant against appellant Lalit Kumar @ Lalloo Prasad. Since there is an illness slip of learned counsel for the revisionist, the Court is constrained not to issue any coercive measures against the revisionist. However it is clarified that on the next date of listing, there will not be any adjournment, on whatsoever grounds, shall be granted and if case is not argued, the same shall be decided in terms of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar reported in 2007 (7) SCC, 623 and coercive measures may also be issued against the revisionist. List as directed. " 4. This criminal revision has been preferred assailing impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 delivered by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur, by which judgment and order dated 17.08.2000 delivered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2108 of 1992 : State Vs. Lalit Kumar for offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (A) (1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 5. The learned trial Court after analyzing and appreciating evidence adduced by the Food Department has convicted the revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of amount of Rs. 1000/-has been imposed on him with default stipulation to serve additional imprisonment for three months. 6. Learned Appellate Court has considered finding recorded by the trial Court. The contentions of appellant/revisionist were discarded by the appellate Court. The sample of milk collected by PW-1 was found on chemical analysis adulterated. 1000/-has been imposed on him with default stipulation to serve additional imprisonment for three months. 6. Learned Appellate Court has considered finding recorded by the trial Court. The contentions of appellant/revisionist were discarded by the appellate Court. The sample of milk collected by PW-1 was found on chemical analysis adulterated. The appellate Court has also considered Rule 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 1955 and recorded finding that the requisite formalities were complied with, while the sample was sent for chemical examination by Public Analyst, U.P. Lucknow. PW-1 witness Ravi Kant Agnihotri has proved this fact. Therefore, Rule 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 1955 were complied with by PW-1 and the department. 7. The appellate Court and the trial Court has found that Public Analyst Sri R.C. Singh forwarded his report dated 17.12.1990 and found that milk fat was 4.6 % and milk solid non-fat were 8.5 %. Therefore, milk fat was 2.3% less and solid non-fat was 6 % less, according to standard prescribed by the Food Adulteration Act. Milk fat according to prescribed standard has to be 6% and milk solid non-fat has to be 9%. 8. In these circumstances, the appellate Court found that sample of milk collected from the possession of the revisionist was adulterated and the trial Court convicted the revisionist in correct perspective. Therefore, impugned judgment dated 17.08.2000 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld and affirmed by the appellate Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2000 passed by the trial Court. 9. I have also perused the record of this revision. The complainant PW-1, PW-2 Suresh Yadav, PW-3 Ashok Kumar Singh, PW-4 Ram Kumar Mathur Senior Clerk of C.M.O. Office were examined by the trial Court during course of the trial. These witnesses proved Ext Ka-1 to Ext Ka-13 documents relied upon by the prosecution. The Food Inspector/complainant collected sample of milk on 13.11.1990 at 09.15 from possession of revisionist, while he was going to sell 13 litre milk of Buffalo. 10. PW-1 purchased 660 M.L. milk from the revisionist after paying its cost Rs. 3.30/-and collected sample of milk and sealed it at the place of recovery. 11. The Food Inspector/complainant collected sample of milk on 13.11.1990 at 09.15 from possession of revisionist, while he was going to sell 13 litre milk of Buffalo. 10. PW-1 purchased 660 M.L. milk from the revisionist after paying its cost Rs. 3.30/-and collected sample of milk and sealed it at the place of recovery. 11. The trial Court has recorded evidence of witnesses under Section 244 and 246 Cr.P.C. and ample opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the revisionist by the trial Court. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court have discarded the defence evidence adduced by the DW-1 Ram Raj. On the basis of defence evidence, the revisionist was not able to prove this fact that no sample of milk was taken from his possession by PW-1/complainant in the circumstances mentioned in the complainant by him. 12. This revision lacks merit. Dismissed. 13. The copy of the judgment be sent to trial Court and revisionist be arrested and sent jail immediately to serve out sentence awarded against him. 14. Section has to communicate this order immediately.