Allahabad High Court
Madan Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1060 of 1987
Revisionist :- Madan Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- T.P. Singh, D.P.Singh, S.K.Gupta, S.Niranjan, Vipin Chandra Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Vipin Chandra Pal, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 10.07.1987 passed by Sri V.S. Shukla, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1985, dismissing appeal and affirming judgment and order dated 11.03.1985 passed by Sri R.S. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate Ist, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 86 of 1983, whereby appellant was convicted under Sections 7(1)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist contended that Food Inspector has no jurisdiction since he was assigned to do work in Mariahun and was not authorized to take sample for the area of Badlapur, therefore, he could not have made inspection in the said area. I find that this aspect has already been considered by Court below and it has specifically been observed that Chief Medical Officer vide order dated 04.08.1981, authorized Sri D.N. Singh, Food Inspector to perform additional duty in the area of Badlapur and this document (Ex.Ka-8) has duly been proved before Court below, hence, it cannot be said that Food Inspector had no jurisdiction.
4. It is next contended that Food Inspector could not collect sample of turmeric properly but for the purpose of identifying adulteration, there is a report of public analyst which shows presence of insects in the food items and, therefore, found adulterated.
5. It is lastly contended that turmeric is a basic food item and, therefore, minimum punishment prescribed under the statute is of three months with a fine of Rs. 500/- which could have been imposed. This submission is misconceived. I do not find that it does mean that accused is entitled to claim that he should be given minimum punishment.
6. In the present case, food item was found in open for sale which was adulterated and, therefore, punishment of six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on appellant-revisionist by Courts below is neither arbitrary nor illegal.
7. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
8. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Siddhant Sahu
