Allahabad High Court
Vimal Kumar Rajauria vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179284
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2678 of 2021
Vimal Kumar Rajauria
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.
3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Rajauria vs. State of U.P.) and the judgment and order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra in Complaint Case No. 1778 of 2008 (Nagar Swasth Adhikari Vs. Imal Kumar Rajauria and another), Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for 01 year simple imprisonment & fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months additional imprisonment.
4. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused.
5. The facts arising out of the matter are as under:-
(i). On 07.08.2008, form-6 was prepared and paneer was taken from the revisionist (Exb. Ka-1).
(ii). A receipt dated 07.08.2008 was given by Vimal Kumar Rajauria for the rate being Rs.110/- per kg. of paneer in which the sale was of 750 gram for Rs.78/- (Exb. Ka-2).
(iii). Memo was prepared by sending the sample to the Public Analyst, Government of U.P., Lucknow on 07.08.2008 (Exb. Ka-4).
(iv). The said sample was sent by a registered post to the public analyst on 07.08.2008 (Exb. Ka-5).
(v). The sample was tested/analyzed on 30.08.2008 by the public analyst and a report dated 11.09.2008 for the same was prepared (Exb. Ka-6).
(vi). In the present matter we are concerned with Item No. A.-11.02.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 prescribes the standards and limits for certain articles of food by specifying the same in Appendix B to the Rules which lays down the following standards:-
"A. 11.02.05 -- CHHANNA OR PANEER means the product obtained from the cow or buffalo milk or a combination thereof by precipitation with sour milk, lactic acid or citric acid. It shall not contain more than 70.0 per cent moisture, and the milk fat content shall not be less than 50.0 per cent of the dry matter.
Provided that paneer or chhana when solid as low fat paneer or chhana, it shall confirm to the following requirements :-
(i) Moisture - Not more than 70.0 percent
(ii) Milk Fat - Not more than 15.0 percent of dry matter
Milk solids may also be used in preparation of this product."
(vii). The report of the public analyst reads as under:-
"1-Butyrorefractometer reading of the extracted fat at 40c-40.5 A-11.02.05
2-Moisture ISI 40.48%
3- Milk fat (on dry weight basis) ISI 35.8%
4-Test for Sugar SOPM Negative
5-Test for Starch SOPM Negative
6-Test for urea & CO SOPM Negative
7-Test for Casein I.S.I. Positive
Opinion: The Milk fat content is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 50% for Paneer. The sample is adulterated."
(viii). A complaint dated 13.11.2008 was filed by the Food Inspector before the court concerned against the revisionist for violation of offences under Sections 7(1) read with Section 2(1-a)(a) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Exb. Ka-7).
(ix). A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent on 19.01.2009.
(x). The statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded of P.W.1 Parmanand, the Food Inspector.
(xi). The charge was framed vide order dated 09.05.2012 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra against the revisionist for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(xii). The accused was read and explained of it to which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
(xiii). P.W.1 Parmanand, the Food Inspector and P.W.2 Ram Swarup Sharma, the Food Clerk were examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C in support of the prosecution.
(xiv). The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 28.09.2013, denied the prosecution case in full.
(xv). The trial court then convicted the accused/revisionist as above against which an appeal was filed which was dismissed and thus the present revision before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the item as allegedly collected by the Food Inspector from the shop of the revisionist is paneer. It is further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever that the said place was a factory. It is further submitted that the report of the public analyst states that milk fat contained is less than the prescribed limit of 50% of paneer and thus the sample was declared to be adulterated. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement and order of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Bhattacharjee Mahasya and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and another : Crl. Appeal No. 1800 of 2022 (arising out of S.L. P. (Crl.) No. 5272 of 2022) and while placing para nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the same, it is submitted that if the quality and purity of an article falls below the prescribed limit, the same would be an offence under Section 2(i-a)(m) of the Act but the proviso to it gives an exception. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the case would fall under the proviso. It is submitted that the deficiency of milk fat depends on the quality of milk and this question has not been given into either in the evidence or by the trial court and the appellate court. The said paragraphs reads as under:-
"8. An offence under Section 2(ia) (m) will be made out if th quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribe standard. However, the proviso indicates an exception. Section 2(ia) (m) reads as follows:
"2. Definition. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires.-
(ia) "adulterated"-an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated-
(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health:
Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.
Explanation. Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food-
(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and
(b) is not injurious to health.
then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause;"
9. There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso. For instance, the report of the Public Analyst says that the moisture content was 77.6% and that as per the prescribed standard, it shall not contain more than 70%. But there is no indication as to whether the moisture content was more due to natural causes. Even, the milk fat content of the dry matter may depend upon the quality of the milk and this question was also not gone into.
10. Therefore, we are of the view that a petty shop owner has been prosecuted by making much ado about nothing. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Sessions Court and the order of the Magistrate are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. As such the fact that the deficiency in milk food could have been due to natural reasons, has not been gone into throughout the records and thus the revisionist deserves benefit. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the revisionist by the trial court and the judgement and order of the appellate court deserves to be set-aside and the revisionist deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
8. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a case in which sample of paneer was purchased from the shop of the revisionist. The same was sent for testing to the public analyst who found it deficient in milk fat contents which was less than the prescribed limit of 50% as it was found to be 31.93%. The sample was thus declared adulterated on which procedure was adopted and complaint was filed. The revisionist was tried and was convicted against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. The question regarding applicability of the proviso of Section 2(i-a)(m) of the Act has not been addressed at all at the stage of trial and at the appellate stage. The revisionist is entitled to the benefit of the same.
10. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated judgment and order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Agra and the judgment and order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
11. The revisionist- Vimal Kumar Rajauria is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.
12. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this judgement along with the trial court records to the concerned trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
October 9, 2025
AS Rathore
