Allahabad High Court
Muni Raj vs State Of U.P. on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192043
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1717 of 2009
Revisionist :- Muni Raj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Mullick
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Mullick, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
3. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut dismissing Criminal Appeal No.250/2008 (Raj Kumar Vs. State) and affirming the judgment and order dated 22.08.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Meerut in Case No.11/2002 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and another) whereby the revisionist/Muni Raj and co-accused Raj Kumar have convicted and sentenced under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for six months simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to one month of simple imprisonment.
4. The facts which arise in the matter are that co-accused Raj Kumar was found having ice candy for being sold/taken for sale/kept for sale on 24.05.2001 at about 07:00 am at Bhatipura, P.S. Kithor, District Meerut by Food Inspector Kiran Shankar Dixit who introduced himself to him and purchased nine grams of ice candy (orange coloured) from him for analysis. The said sample was packed in three different bottles in equal quantity and formalin was added to it and it was sealed in it. Notice about it was given to the accused. The papers were prepared. The material was sent to the Food Analyst who vide his report dated 08.07.2001 opined that the sugar is deficient by 10% and the sample has been sweetened with saccharin, the use of which is prohibited. The revisionist is the owner of the said material whereas the co-accused Raj Kumar is the seller of it. A complaint dated 14.01.2002 was filed by Food Inspector on which the trial proceeded and was concluded by convicting the revisionist as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued a solitary point that the sample in the present matter was taken on 24.05.2001, the report of the Public Analyst is dated 07.08.2001 but the prosecution was launched by the Food Inspector against the revisionist and co-accused Raj Kumar on 14.01.2002 after which it is stated that the report of the Public Analyst along with notice of the case was sent to the accused. It is argued that there is an inordinate delay in launching of the prosecution due to which the valuable right of the accused under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act gets defeated. It is argued that since there was an inordinate delay in launching of the prosecution the sending of the notice which is subsequent to it also becomes delayed and as such the right of the accused get prejudiced. It is argued that as such the present revision be allowed and the judgment and order of conviction be set aside. It is argued that the trial court and the appellate court have not applied their mind and have passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the facts.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the impugned judgments and orders are legal and do not call for any interference.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the prosecution was launched after 7 months 20 days from the date of taking of the sample. The notice and report of the Public Analyst has to be sent only after launching of the prosecution. There is no justifiable reason for the delay which is inordinate in launching of the prosecution. Since there was an inordinate delay in sending of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act the right of the accused gets prejudiced.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, this Court is of the view that the present revision deserves to be allowed. Consequently this revision is allowed.
9. The judgment and order dated 10.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No.250/2008 (Raj Kumar Vs. State) under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the judgment and order dated 22.08.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Meerut in Case No.11/2002 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and another) are hereby set aside.
10. The revisionist is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
11. The trial court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
