Ram Lautan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6846 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Lautan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49135
 
Court No. - 11
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 401 of 2013
 
Revisionist :- Ram Lautan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.G. Singh,Anuj Pandey,Brijesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.06.2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2012, preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Court No. 10, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 2349 of 2010, under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station - Raunahhi, District Faizabad, convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the, ''Act, 1954') with a punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. The case of prosecution, which is apparent from record, is to the effect that :-

(i) On 29.12.2009, Food Inspector Smt. Amita Singh Jigyasyu inspected Dyodi Bazar, Police Station - Raunahhi, District Faizabad.

(ii) While inspecting shop of the accused-revisionist, the Food Inspector was asked the accused-appellant to show license for the year 2009-2010 for selling sweets, tea, etc.

(iii) On suspecting adulteration, sample 'Peda' was taken and sent for inspection and as per the expert report 'Starch' was found in the sample of 'Peda' (khoya,chini). Thus, the sample was found adulterated."

4. The permission from District Magistrate for prosecuting the appellant was obtained and thereafter, the case was presented before the Magistrate/trial Court and in the matter cognizance was taken and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 2349 of 2010 and the charge was  framed under Section 7/16 of Act, 1954 against the accused-appellant to which he denied and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined Smt. Amita Singh Jigyasyu (P.W.1), Krishna Kumar Yadav (P.W.2).

6. After closing of the evidence, statements of accused/ appellant were recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

7. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary evidence.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 18.08.2012, the appellant preferred the appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.06.2013.

9. Challenging the order passed by the trial Court as also the appellate Court, instant revision has been filed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused-revisionist has not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of conviction and sentence for the offense under Section 7/16 of Act, 1954.

11. Learned counsel for accused-revisionist submits that in view of the facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionist has not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1958') after convicting for the offense under Section 7/16 of Act, 1954, which may be done by this Court.

12. The question of the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1938, to the case of a person found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Isher Das v. State of Punjab : AIR 1972 SC 1295. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is not excluded in the case of the persons found guilty of the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. No distinction was made between a case which entails the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 1(c)(1) and a case to which the proviso to that section was attracted. The court, however, cautioned that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be lightly resorted to in view of the fact that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food. It is true that the decision of the Supreme Court was influenced by the fact that Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act contained the non obstinate clause "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" and that Section 18 of the Act excluded from its operation only the offence under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further that the First Offenders' Probation Act was enacted subsequent to the enactment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but that would make no difference in determining the question whether the operation of the Offenders Act is excluded in the case of persons found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, The underlying object of both the Central and the State Acts obviously is that an accused person should be given a chance of reformation which he would lose in case he is incarcerated in prison and associated with hardened criminals. That object is further emphasised in enacting that a person who is less than 21 years of age and is convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six months, the court is under a duty not to sentence him to imprisonment unless there exists special reasons which justify such a course.

13. 11. In Jai Narain v. Municipal Coirporation of Delhi : AIR 1972 SC 2607, the court reiterated the principle that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act apply to persons found guilty under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, although on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court came to the conclusion that it was neither expedient nor in consonance with the object with which the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was passed to apply Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the case in hand. The principle laid down in Isher Das's case (supra) was again affirmed in Pyarali K, Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others : AIR 1974 SC 28. In the words of Iyer, J.:

"The rehabilatory purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is pervasive enough technically to take within its wing? an offence even under the Act."

14. The principle that emerges from these decisions is that the Probation of Offenders Act apply to offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Its operation cannot be whittled down or circumscribed by the fact that a minimum sentence is provided for certain offences and no discretion is left to the court in that matter.

15. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act can be allowed to an accused who is found guilty of an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1954), to which the proviso to Section 16 of the Act does not apply.

16. Considering the fact and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the benefit of provision of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 should be provided to the accused/appellant.

17. In view of above, instead of sending the revisionist to jail, he is is given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and, therefore, is released on probation and is directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned and also an undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behavior during the period of one year from today. The said bonds are to be filed by the revisionist within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

18. The accused-revisionist within the aforesaid period shall also deposit the amount of fine, as impugned in the judgment under appeal, if the same has not been deposited till date.

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the revisionist shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to them.

20. With the above modification, the instant revision appeal is partly allowed.

21. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

22. Trial court record, if any, shall also be sent back to the district court concerned.

Order Date :- 21.08.2025/Mohit Singh/-