Om Prakash vs State And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 28028 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196834
 
Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 425 of 1993
 
Revisionist :- Om Prakash
 
Opposite Party :- State And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Singh,Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Usha Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. From the perusal of papers on record, it is revealed that revisionist has died. Because of the legal position that the revisions do not abate on the death of the revisionist, I proceed to decide this revision on merits.

3. Heard and perused the papers on record.

4. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd, (Economic Offences), Agra, by which the revisionist was convicted for an offence under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine, as well as the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 42/1989 (Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P.) dated 27.03.1993, by which the order passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate was affirmed.

5. My attention has been drawn to the grounds mentioned in the memo of the revision in which main contentions are that the revisionist was not the seller of the milk; no independent witness was procured at the time of taking sample; the person, to whom allegedly the milk was being sold, was not produced; different versions were given by the witnesses; the sample of the milk was not sent to the public analyst as per the provisions of law and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction suffered from illegality hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

6. I went through the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and has dealt with all the arguments advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence. The learned appellate court, in its judgment made an independent assessment from the papers and the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the position of law. The appellate court relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity of the nature so as to justify the interference by this Court in the impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders are not interfered at.

7. It is worth notice that the accused convict has died, hence, this judgment is inexecutable.

8. With the above observations, the revision is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.10.2023/Sumit Kumar