Allahabad High Court
Vijay Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193115
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2015 of 2008
Vijay Agrawal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Manish Kumar Singh, A.K. Verma, S.R. Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. The trial court records have also been received which have been perused.
4. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist- Vijay Agrawal with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit and allow the present revision of the revisionist and be pleased to set aside the impugned judgement and orders dated 7.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Economic Offences Court No. 1, Mathura in Case No. 175/IX/88, State versus Vijay Agrawal, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura as well as appellate order dated 16.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2005, Vijay Agrawal versus State of U.P., under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura and also be pleased to set aside the fine imposed upon him by acquitting the revisionist from the charge imposed upon him
AND
It is further prayed that meanwhile enlarge the revisionist on bail in Case No. 175/IX/88, State versus Vijay Agrawal, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, to the satisfaction of court concerned and also be pleased to stay the fine imposed upon the revisionist.
AND
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the operation and execution of the order dated 07.10.2005 passed by the trial court as well as judgement and order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the appellate court and sentence imposed upon the revisionist during pendency of present revision before this Hon'ble Court, or pass such other further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice otherwise revisionist would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any terms of way."
5. The revisionist was tried and convicted vide judgement and order dated 07.10.2005 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Economic Offence, Court No.1, Mathura in Case No. 175/IX/88, State versus Vijay Agrawal, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, for 06 months rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to 01 month simple imprisonment. Against the said judgement and order an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 61/2005, Vijay Agrawal versus State of U.P., was preferred by him which stood dismissed vide judgement and order dated 16.7.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura, affirming the judgement and order dated 07.10.2005 of the trial court. The present revision has been filed against both the judgment and orders.
6. The facts of the case are that on 17.6.1988 at about 12:00 p.m. Food Inspector Panna Lal Varshney visited the shop of the revisionist situated at Jaisingh Pura, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura and introduced himself and on suspicion of chana daal being adulterated, purchased 600gms of the same after paying Rs.4.80 to him. Form-VI dated 17.6.1988 was prepared about the said inspection, on which the accused made a signature. The same is Ex Ka-1 to the records. Receipt bearing Serial No.772, dated 17.6.1988 was also prepared regarding the said sale and payment done which was signed by the accused/revisionist. The same is Ex Ka-2 to the records. The material was then distributed into three equal parts and sealed as per rules in dry bottles. The same was sent to the public analyst for examination who received the same on 24.6.1988 and through his report dated 14.7.1988 opined that the said sample contains 1% of Khesari Dal (Lathyrus Sativus) and use of it is prohibited. The report of public analyst is Ex Ka-7 to the records. Sanction was taken from the C.M.O. concerned and then a complaint dated 20.09.1988 was filed before the court concerned, copy of the said complaint is Ex. Ka-10 to the records. The statement of Panna Lal Varshney was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1. The accused denied the charges against him. Vide order dated 09.2.2000 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Economic Offences, Mathura, charge under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed against the revisionist. Trial commenced in which Panna Lal Varshney, Food Inspector, was examined as P.W.1 and Kunj Bihari Mishra, Food Clerk, was examined as P.W.-2. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and stated that sanction accorded by the C.M.O. concerned is incorrect and he has no shop of his own and does not sell dal. The trial court after trial got satisfied and came to its conclusion that offence is made out against the revisionist/accused and the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus convicted him as aforesaid. An appeal preferred against the same, was dismissed and the judgement and order of the trial court was affirmed. The present revision has thus been filed before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in so far as drawing of sample by P.W.-1 Food Inspector is concerned, the same does not conform to the rules as prescribed by this Act. It is submitted while placing Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, that as per Entry-19 therein, pulses, cereals and likes were stated to be of approximately 250gms of quantity to be supplied to the public analyst for analysis, but in the present matter 600gms of the alleged sample was purchased by the Food Inspector/P.W.-1 which was divided into 3 equal parts and sealed, out of which one part was sent for analysis. It is submitted that as such about 200gms of the alleged sample was only sent for analysis to the public analyst which is much less than the quantity as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1955 to be sent to the public analyst. It is submitted that since quantity of the alleged material as sent to the public analyst for analysis is lesser then prescribed in the rules, thus the prosecution succeeded on the basis of defective analysis of inappropriate quantity of the alleged material. It is submitted that looking to the same the prosecution deserves to be set aside and the revisionist deserves to be acquitted.
8. Learned State counsel although opposed the argument and the revision vehemently but in so far as the argument relating to quantity of alleged material to be sent to the public analyst for analysis as per Rule 22 of Rules, 1955 is concerned, could not dispute the same. It is submitted that even otherwise the material as received by the public analyst was found to contain 1% prohibited dal and thus the prosecution should not fail and should not continue and reach its logical conclusion. Learned State counsel further submits that as per Rule 22 which was substituted by GSR 1340 dated 07th October, 1961 and continued to be enforce till January 29, 2003 after being substituted by GSR 530 (E), 29 July, 2002, the quantity of pulse, cereals and the like at entry no. 19 of the said Rules is 250 gms and thus there is no dispute that the quantity as sent to the public analyst for testing was lesser then prescribed quantity being about 200 gms only since the total purchase was of 600gms and, as per the evidence, the same was equally distributed in 3 parts and one of them was sent to the public analyst.
9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, short question which crops up in the present matter is whether the sample as collected and then distributed in 3 equal parts out of which 01 part was sent to the public analyst for analysis conforms to the quantity as specified in Rule 22 of Rules, 1955 or not. In the present matter the material collected is chana dal. Specific prosecution case is purchase of 600gms of the same and then equal division of the same in three parts, sealing of all the three parts and then sending one of such part to the public analyst for analysis. The approximate quantity as prescribed under Rule 22 of Rules, 1955 to be supplied to the public analyst for analysis of such item is specified in entry-19 under heading "Articles of Food" provided of 250gms of such article to be sent. In the present matter it is not being disputed that 600gms of total material was purchased which was distributed in three equal parts out of which one part was sent to the public analyst and thus sending of one of the part is lesser then the prescribed quantity to be sent to the public analyst for its examination.
10. In view of the said facts, the prosecution thus fails. The present revision is allowed.
11. The impugned judgement and order dated 7.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Economic Offences Court No. 1, Mathura in Case No. 175/IX/88, State versus Vijay Agrawal, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura as well as appellate order dated 16.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2005, Vijay Agrawal versus State of U.P., under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are hereby set aside.
12. The revisionist- Vijay Agrawal is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.The non-bailable warrants issued against him stand cancelled.
13. Registrar (Compliance) to transmit the copy of this judgement along with the trial court records to the concerned trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary follow-up action. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid remuneration, as per rules, within three weeks of filing of an appropriate application before the officer concerned.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
November 3, 2025
Naresh
