Mewa Ram vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 14797 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102555
 
Court No. - 93
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4908 of 2006
 
Revisionist :- Mewa Ram
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.P. Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the order and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.10.2004 passed learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 520 of 1999 (State vs. Mewa Ram) under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and further a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2004 (Mewa Ram vs. State of U.P.) filed by the convict challenging the judgment and order of the trial court. The learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

3. Challenging the above two orders, it is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that when the sample was taken, no public witness was present, therefore, provisions of Section 10(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were violated; the provisions of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not considered by the courts below; further the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. too were violated; second sample of the food article was sent to the Central Food Laboratory without duly intimating the accused revisionist, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law.

4. I went through the lower court record and the judgment passed by the trial court. The provision of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 enumerate the powers of the food inspector. The relevant portions are as below:-

"(1) A food inspector shall have power?

(a) to take samples of any article of food from?

(i) any person selling such article;

ii) any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee;

(iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him; and

(b)to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken;

(c) with the previous approval of the Local (Health) Authority having jurisdiction in the local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) Authority, to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health.

(2) Any food inspector may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis.

(3)...........

(4)...........

(5)...........

(6)...........

(7) Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall [call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures].

(7A)............

(7B)............

(8).............

(9)............"

The revisionist has not been able to point out how the concerned authorities or the food inspector committed any lapse of procedure while taking samples as provided in Section 10(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; the trial court in his judgment has noted that an endeavor was made to procure independent public witness but could not be procured as they refused to witness sampling; in such circumstances this argument cannot be given importance out of the proportion that no public witness was examined.

5. The provisions of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provide for procedure which shall be followed by the food inspector while sending the sample for food analysis; the learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to pin point the lapse, if any, committed by the food inspector; after taking the sample till its conveyance to the public analyst as provided in Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

6. The argument as regard to application of Section 273 Cr.P.C. for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory is wholly misconceived.

7. The revisionist has further not been able to point out any lapse of procedure as prescribed in Section 13(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is argued by the revisionist that in this case second sample was sent for chemical examination in absence of the accused persons. This may be noted that same plea was raised before the appellate court. The appellate court in its judgment considered the above plea and has given a finding beginning from para-3 of the judgment. The appellate court, while making its own evaluation of material before it did not find any substance in the plea taken.

8. The appellate court noted the fact that the laboratory at Lucknow as well as the Central Food Laboratory found that the food article milk contained milk fats and milk non-fat solid below prescribed limits. The learned appellate court noted that all the pleas taken in appeal were technical and formal in nature and that the learned trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence given by the prosecution. Both the courts below also noted that there was no lapse of procedure in taking samples, in sending the same for chemical analysis and on related issues.

9. The prosecution case is that the milk fat and milk non-fat solids were found less than the prescribed limit.

10. From the judgment of the appellate court, it is quite clear that while giving concurrent finding, the learned appellate court evaluated the evidence at its own level in an independent manner and found the accused guilty of offence defined under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. I do not find any infirmity in the conviction order warranting any interference by the revisional court.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that this case pertains to an incident of the year 1999 and that more than 22 years have gone since thereafter and that he has been facing litigation for quite a long time. He is now quite old and has undergone part of the imprisonment, therefore, in the interest of justice, the sentence may be modified to one as already undergone.

12. Learned AGA has not objected to reduction of sentence of imprisonment.

13. As per the proviso to Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where article of food involved is a primary food which is adulterated due to human agency, the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. In this case admittedly the article of food was milk, which is primary food and the milk fat and milk non-fat solids were found less than the prescribed limit. The case pertains to the sample taken in the year 1999 and in my view this is a reason good enough to reduce the sentence to three months while increasing the amount of find at Rs. 10,000/-.

14. The revisionist accused is sentenced for 3 months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo 2 weeks of simple imprisonment.

15. Hence, while maintaining the conviction, sentence order is accordingly modified and revision is disposed of.

16. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist shall be set off in the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court.

17. Copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the court concerned for necessary action.

Order Date :- 11.5.2023

#Vikram/-