Allahabad High Court
Banshi Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116416
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3545 of 2004
Revisionist :- Banshi Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01.Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P.Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 09.08.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1998 (Banshi Gupta vs. R.R.Prajapati and another), under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter as referred to "PFA Act") as well as the judgment and order dated 19.12.1998 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur whereby learned trial court convicted the revisionist-accused for an offence under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of "PFA Act" passed an order to undergo six months R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-.
03. The contentions of the revisionist are that the trial court as well as appellate court passed the judgment and order ignoring the fact of non compliance of statutory provisions contained in Section 10 (7), 13, 13( 2) and 17 of "PFA Act" and Rule 11 (4) of P.F.A. Rule, 1955, therefore, the impugned judgments are bad in law.
04. From the papers on record, it is revealed that the shop of the revisionist was inspected by Food Inspector and he took samples of iodised salt and prepared memo thereof in form no.6; the samples were analysed by the State Food Analyst; the content of iodine was less than the prescribed limit; complaint was filed against the accused revisionist; two witnesses and documentary evidence were produced; the learned court below after hearing both the sides convicted the accused; the accused preferred an appeal; Learned appellate court concurred with the finding given by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Now the revisionist is before this Court challenging both the orders.
05. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision on the premise that there is in fact no violation of statutory provision and that the revisionist has been rightly convicted. The revisionist has no material to show in his favour. The provisions of "PFA Act" have been mentioned in a routine and mechanical manner without pointing out the facts and circumstances on the basis of which their violation can be ascertained.
It is further contended that in this case the trial court pronounced the judgment in the year 1998 and same was confirmed in 2004. The revisionist applied for bail in this revision and has been enjoying the liberty so granted and that he made no attempt to get his revision decided. This revision was earlier dismissed on 08.04.2022 as none appeared for the revisionist and now he has come again in this revision after restoration of the same.
It is further pointed out that the revisionist is now in judicial custody and there is every likelihood that his period of imprisonment is about to complete. At this juncture learned counsel for the revisionist said that once the order passed on 08.04.2022 in his absence dismissing the revision has been set aside, he has every right to get this revision decided on merits. It is admitted by him that the revisionist is in judicial custody.
06. Without addressing the contentions regarding dismissal of revision and its subsequent restoration and legal issues arising therefrom, I proceed to decide this revision on merits of the case.
i. First contention is that provisions of Section 10 of "PFA Act" have not been complied with in this case. I perused the papers as well as both the impugned judgements in the light of provision of Section 10 of "PFA Act". Main contention is that at the time of sampling the Food Inspector did not call any person from the public and did not take their signature as provided in Section 10 (7) of "PFA Act". The facts as noted down by the trial court in its judgement indicate that sampling was done in presence of certain public witnesses and their signatures were taken even on the code's slip pasted on the sample at the time of the statutory formalities being observed as per provision of Section 10 of the "PFA Act". Same contention was raised before the appellate court. The appellate court did not find any substance in those contentions, in fact, it found that sampling was done in the presence of witnesses. I do not find any ground to interfere in the above finding.
ii. Next contention is about non compliance of Section 13 (2) of "PFA Act". Learned trial court considered the question of compliance of provisions of Section 13 (2) and found that prosecution had produced a receipt bearing address and name of the accused and returned a finding of fact that there was enough evidence to presume that notice under Section 13(2) of "PFA Act" was in fact served and therefore there was sufficient compliance of the aforesaid provision. Learned appellate court also considered the above contentions raised with regard to compliance of Section 13(2) of "PFA Act". Learned appellate court went through the oral and documentary evidence in this regard and agreed with the conclusion drawn by the trial court in this respect. I do not find any perversity, illegality or impropriety in the above findings.
iii. Third and last contention is about the none compliance of provision of Section 17 of "PFA Act". It may be noted that no such contention was raised either before the trial court or before the appellate court. Section 17 defines the offence by companies. It says that when the offence was committed by a company, the nominated person or the person responsible for conduct of business of company or any person who has been in-charge and was responsible for conduct of business shall be punishable. There are certain other provisions with regard to commission of offence under this Act by companies. Referring to the above provision of law it is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the samples were sealed packets of iodized salt, therefore, he cannot be held liable in the case. It is contended that the company, who manufactured the same, should be held responsible. In my view, there is no force in such argument. It is not disputed that the revisionist was selling the articles in his shop. The evidence has been led that the packets though were sealed but did not bear any address or name of any company or any trademark etc. whatsoever, hence no benefit can be given under Section 17 of the "PFA Act".
07. On the basis of above discussion, I do not find any perversity, illegality or impropriety procedural or otherwise hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.
08. It is made clear that any period of incarceration already undergone shall be set off in the period of substantive sentence.
09. Let a copy of the judgment be immediately transmitted to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Asha
