Shankar Kumar Shah vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10064 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shankar Kumar Shah vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154559
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 456 of 2021   
 
   Shankar Kumar Shah    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Yogesh Kumar Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 64
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.      

1. List revised.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the accused Shankar Kumar Shah against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Criminal Case No. 59 of 1998 (State of U.P. Vs. Shankar) whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to one year imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further one month additional imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 (Shankar Kumar Shah Vs. State of U.P. and another) by which the said appeal was partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 regarding conviction was upheld but the sentence as imposed was reduced to six months instead of one year. The fine as imposed was ordered to remain the same.

3. The prosecution case is that the Food Inspector Akhilesh Chandra Sinha visited the canteen of the accused revisionist on 27.08.1997 at about 12:00 pm situated in Obra Electricity Plant for inspection and apart from the other food items found "Besan Laddu" (prepared in Vanaspati) to be kept for sale. On a suspicion of it being adulterated, he purchased 900 gms by giving Rs. 36 cash. He served a notice under Form-VI dated 27.08.1997 on the accused revisionist, the same is Exb: Ka-1 to the records. A receipt regarding the same dated 27.08.1997 was also given which is Exb: Ka-2 to the records. As per noting on Form-VI and the receipt, the accused revisionist refused signing the said documents and further the local persons present there also refused signing it as witnesses. The said article was then distributed in three parts and preserved in three dry bottles equally and sealed as per procedure regarding which signature of Ahmad Ali was done on it. A covering letter in Form-VII was prepared for the same. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh, through registered parcel No. 5013 dated 28.08.1997 along with copy of the Form-VII. The other samples were kept in the office concerned. The Public Analyst gave his report dated 08.10.1997 to the effect that the sample contains Kheshari (Lathyrus Sativas) which is a prohibited food item. The report of the Public Analyst is Exb: Ka-6 to the records. In the said report, the material as received for analysis has been mentioned which reads as under:

"????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??"

4. The sample was thus considered to be adulterated and sanction was sought from the CMO concerned for launching of the prosecution which was duly accorded and a complaint dated 12.01.1998 was then filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra which vide order dated 20.01.1998 of the CJM concerned was directed to be registered.

5. Statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. of Akhilesh Chandra Sinha the Chief Food Inspector was recorded. Charge vide order dated 28.05.2004 of the CJM concerned was framed against the revisionist for violation of Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act which was punishable under Section 16 of the said Act. The accused was read over the same who denied it and claimed to be tried. Statement under Section 246 Cr.P.C. of Akhilesh Chandra Sinha the Chief Food Inspector as PW-1 was recorded. Awadhesh Prasad Dubey the Chief Clerk in the office of the CMO concerned was examined as PW-2. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. The trial court then convicted the accused-revisionist as above against which an appeal was preferred by him which was partly allowed as stated above. The present revision has thus been filed challenging the judgments and orders aforesaid.

6. PW-1 Akhilesh Chandra Sinha the Food Inspector has stated that on 27.08.1997 at about 12:00 pm he conducted a raid at the canteen of the revisionist situated at the Obra Power Plant and amongst other food items found "Besan Laddu" to be kept and displayed for sale. On asking he told that the same is made in Vanaspati. On suspicion of it being adulterated, he purchased 900 gms of the same after paying the required money. He completed the formalities, sealed the purchased articles and sent it to the Public Analyst who vide his report dated 08.10.1997 opined that Khesari Dal was present in it and thus the same was adulterated and thus he filed a complaint against the revisionist.

7. PW-2 Awadhesh Prasad Dubey the Senior Clerk in the office of the CMO concerned stated that the letter of the CMO concerned and other documents were sent at the address of the revisionist by registered post on 23.01.1998 calling him upon to exercise his right for getting the second sample tested in Central Food Laboratory and the said registered letter did not return back.

8. Heard Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records along with the trial court records which are tagged with the present file.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist raised a single argument that the consistent case of the prosecution is that "Besan Laddu" was collected by the Food Inspector, sealed and sent for analysis but the Food Analyst received "Boondi Laddu" which are totally two different food items and even the method of preparation of both are totally different. It is submitted that the purchase of the material as per receipt allegedly issued by the Food Inspector, Form-VI, letter to the Food Analyst, Information to the CMO concerned and even the complaint show that the material as disclosed therein is "Besan Laddu". It is submitted that even charge against the revisionist has been framed for selling "Besan Laddu" but the material which has been tested by the Food Analyst is "Boondi Laddu" which is all together different item. It is submitted that the trial court was faced with this argument wherein the learned DGC stated that writing of "Besan Laddu" in place of "Boondi Laddu" is a clerical error and on the said basis the report of the Food Analyst cannot be doubted which was duly accepted by the trial court and the argument of the defence was considered to be faulty. It is submitted that even the same argument was raised before the appellate court wherein also the same was not considered in its prospective and the appellate court came to the conclusion that above the said noting in the report of the Public Analyst there was something written which was having cutting which was not verified and then again the said fact that the material is "Boondi Laddu" is written which does not transpire confidence. It is submitted that the approach of both the courts is contrary to the records and without any credible basis. It is submitted that as such it is clear that the material as collected was "Besan Laddu" but the material which reached the Food Analyst was "Boondi Laddu" and the trial court has not returned any finding regarding the actual material but has considered it to be a typographical error which cannot be taken in the said prospective. It is submitted that as such the revisionist deserves to be extended benefit of doubt and 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 of the matter.

10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and argument of learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the view taken by the trial court and the appellate court is a probable view and the description as given in the report of the Public Analyst can be a typographical error. It is submitted that even otherwise the basic material used for making of "Besan Laddu" and "Boondi Laddu" is the same which was found to contain Kheshari which is a prohibited food item. It is submitted that thus the fact remains that the material was containing a prohibited food item which was displayed for sell and thus a complaint was filed and the revisionist was convicted by the trial court which was upheld by the appellate court but the sentence was reduced. It is submitted that as such the revision be dismissed.

11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the material as purchased for which price was paid by the Food Inspector was "Besan Laddu", the same is alleged to be sent to the Food Analyst for its analysis. The Food Analyst in the description of the material received discloses the material as "Boondi Laddu". He tests the same and finds in it to contain Kheshari a prohibited food item, the same was thus considered to be adulterated and a complaint was filed which proceeded and the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the trial court against which an appeal was preferred in which the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced by the appellate court as detailed above.

12. The main crux of the issue is the food item which is collected and tested by the Food Analyst. The proceedings then get initiated on the basis of the report of the Food Analyst which is the basis of the prosecution. In the present matter, the material purchased, sealed and sent to analyst, was "Besan Laddu". The material received by the Food Analyst and tested, was "Boondi Laddu" which was found to be containing Kheshari Dal a prohibited food item. "Besan Laddu" and "Boondi Laddu" are two different items which have different method of its preparation. The prosecution has been launched that the alleged sample is of "Besan Laddu" although the sample tested was "Boondi Laddu". The trial court where the said issue was raised by the defence on the statement of the learned DGC came to the conclusion that the same is a typographical error. The said submission of learned DGC was without any basis since both the items are different food items. Even the appellate court cursorily abandoned the challenge on the said count. The crux of the matter thus is that the "Boondi Laddu" was tested by the Food Analyst whereas the sample as purchased collected and sent to the Food Analyst, was "Besan Laddu". The report of the Food Analyst thus becomes doubtful.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the present revision deserves to be allowed by extending benefit of doubt to the revisionist. Consequently this revision is allowed.

14. The judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Criminal Case No. 59 of 1998 (State of U.P. Vs. Shankar) and the judgment and order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 (Shankar Kumar Shah Vs. State of U.P. and another) are hereby set aside.

15. 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.

16. The trial court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith alongwith a copy of this judgment.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

September 2, 2025

M. ARIF