Phool Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Surya Prasad, J.—This is a criminal revision against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990 in to arising out of judgment and order dated 23-4-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Orai convicting the revisionist under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for one month.

The prosecution case briefly stated is that the Food Inspector Sri Chhutkan Verma found at 8.00 A.M. on 14-10-1982 the revisionist Phool Singh carrying on a bicycle about 50 litres of buffalo milk in two containers and going towards the city of Orai District Jalaun for selling the same in the open market. Disclosing his identity and signifying his intention of sending the sample of milk for analysis, Food Inspector Sri Chhutkan Verma purchased 660 mili litres buffalo milk in lieu of Rs. 2/- as price which was paid and receipt was obtained. The public Analyst on examination found that the milk was deficient in fat content by 10% and non-fatty solids by about 17%. The stock was thus adulterated. The Food Inspector obtained sanction for the prosecution of the accused-revisionist Phool Singh and there after filed a complaint against him in the court on 23-2-1983. The Magistrate concerned summoned the accused-revisionist and charged him u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused-revisionist pleaded not guilty.

The Magistrate considered evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused-revisionist vide his judgment and order referred to above. The accuse-revisionist filed an appeal against his judgment and order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Magistrate. Thus accused-revisionist has come up in revision in this Court against the above judgment and order passed by the courts below.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments of the courts below and the evidence on record.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist has referred to the statement of Food Inspector Sri Chhutkan Verma PW 1 to the effect that he had not filed the receipt on record showing that the sample and Form No. VII were sent to the Public Analyst by registered post and that he does not also recollect the number of the receipt. It is on this basis that the learned Counsel has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove how and when the samples, copy of memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet, were actually sent to the public Analyst and therefore, the mandatory provisions of Rules 17(a) and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with and the courts below committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-revisionist. For this purpose he placed reliance upon State of Maharashtra Appellant v. Raj Karan Respondent 1988 EFR (SC) 550, where in the Hon''ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed:

Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute that it is mandatory to have the materials in Rules 17 and 18 separately sent to the public Analyst.

The prosecution has failed to establish the despatch of the materials referred to in Rule 18 to the public Analyst by registered post.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist therefore, finds full support from what has been observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above case.

In the result the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.

The amount of fine, if deposited, will be refunded to him.