Allahabad High Court
Satya Ram vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241807
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2336 of 2009
Revisionist :- Satya Ram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- P. Dikshit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajai Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused.
4. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist- Satya Ram against the judgement and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Etawah, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2004 affirming the judgment and order dated 23.07.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Etawah, in Case No. 825 of 2020 (State Versus Satya Ram), convicting and sentencing the revisionist under section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine three months additional rigorous imprisonment.
5. The facts of the case are that the complainant Kishan Kumar Chauhan, Food Inspector stopped the revisionist on 01.06.2000 at about 11.25 a.m. at Awas Vikas, Itawah while he was carrying milk in container which was intended for sale. On suspicion of it being adulterated, he disclosed his identity to the accused and asked license for sale to which he denied. The complainant purchased 600ml milk by giving Rs.7.20/-for sample and then kept in three bottles in equal quantity in which 48 drops of formalin having 40% power each was added for preserving it which was then sent to the public analyst for chemical analysis who vide his report being report no. 5154 dated 07.07.2000 reported it to be adulterated as it contained 22 per cent less milk fat and 16 percent less milk solid non-fat in it. The complainant then took sanction from the C.M.O. concerned and filed a complaint against the revisionist/accused. In the trial court the complainant Kishan Kumar Chauhan Gupta, Food Inspector, was examined as P.W.-1, Kamal Kumar, Food Inspector was examined as P.W.-2 and Kush Kumar, Food Clerk at C.M.O. Office. The accused/revisionist in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and stated of false implication. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist as stated above. The appeal was preferred against the same which came to be dismissed after which the present revision has been filed against both the impugned judgement and orders.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the matter was taken up in the appellate court and the appellate court returned a finding that since there is no need for stirring and homogenizing the material since the can while transporting it already mixes the material and as such there was no need for stirring and homogenizing the material. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the said argument was taken before the trial court but the trial court returned the finding that it was the responsibility of the seller to homogenize and stir the material and not of the purchaser. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the said material was stirred and homogenized before taking sample of milk. It is further argued that in so far as the milk is concerned the sample has to be taken after stirring and homogenizing of material as the fat in the milk gets settled in bottom being heavy. It is argued that in view of the said discrepancy the revisionist cannot be stated to be carrying milk which was deficient in milk fat and milk fat not solid. It is argued that since the material was not stirred and homogenized before taking its sample and launch of the prosecution on an erroneous report of the Food Analyst, the present revision deserves to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments and argued that the trial court has given cogent reasons for convicting the revisionist. The appellate court has also considered the matter in its true prospective and has come to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, in the matter since the milk before taking of its sample was not stirred and homogenized there are good chances of the upper part being taken from the cans which would be found deficient. In view of the same, it is apparent that the milk taken by the Food Inspector in cans is not stirred and homogenized.
9. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Etawah and the judgment and order dated 23.07.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Etawah are hereby set aside.
10. The revisionist- Satya Ram is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is in jail in compliance of the order dated 05.102023 issuing non bailable warrants against him. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned.
11. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this judgement along with the trial court records to the concerned trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action.
12. The file be consigned to records.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
K.K. Maurya
(Samit Gopal,J.)
