Allahabad High Court
Suresh Pal vs State Of U.P. on 4 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:156744
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1591 of 2013
Suresh Pal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Kristen Sleeth, Moti Lal, Smt.Meera, Umesh Kumar Kushwaha, Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, 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 16.05.2013 passed by A.D.J., Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2011 (Suresh Pal vs. State) and the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the IInd A.C.J.M. / Spl. Magistrate (Economic Offences), Budaun in Criminal Case No. 564/01, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for 06 months rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month additional simple imprisonment.
4. The facts of the case are that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav the Food Inspector found the revisionist on 22.12.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. at Budaun- Dataganj Road, near railway crossing while he was selling mixed milk of cow & buffalo. The food Inspector introduced himself and purchased milk 750 ml from the revisionist by giving Rs.7.50/-for sample and then kept in three bottles in equal quantity in which 20 drops of formalin each was added for preserving it which was then sent to the public analyst for chemical analysis who vide his report being report no. 17771 dated 02.02.2002 reported it to be adulterated as it contained 18 per cent less milk fat. The complainant then took sanction from the C.M.O. concerned and filed a complaint against the revisionist/accused. In the trial court the complainant Kamlesh Kumar Yadav the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.-1, Harprasad the Food Clerk was examined as PW-2. The accused/revisionist in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and stated of false implication. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist as stated above. The appeal was preferred against the same which came to be dismissed after which the present revision has been filed against both the impugned judgement and orders.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav the Food Inspector was examined as PW-1 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and states of taking sample of milk from the revisionist. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the said material was stirred and homogenized before taking sample of milk. It is further argued that in so far as the milk is concerned the sample has to be taken after stirring and homogenizing of material as the fat in the milk gets settled in bottom being heavy. It is argued that in view of the said discrepancy the revisionist cannot be stated to be carrying milk which was deficient in milk fat. It is argued that since the material was not stirred and homogenized before taking its sample and launch of the prosecution on an erroneous report of the Food Analyst, the present revision deserves to be allowed.
6. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the notice under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has not been sent to the revisionist. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the same has been sent by the Food Inspector or received by the revisionist and as such valuable right of the accused/revisionist safeguarding his interest is violated. To buttress the arguments learned counsel has placed the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2020) 15 SCC 763 (para-14 and 15) and Narayan Prasad Sahu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (2022) 1 SCC 87 (para-5, 6, 8 and 9). It is argued that the Apex Court has, in no uncertain terms, in the judgement of Vijendra case (supra) has held that failure of the trial court to take into consideration that no evidence was brought on record to indicate that the report which has been claimed to be dispatched, was actually sent or delivered for the purpose of further reference to the Central Food Laboratory, if the accused is dissatisfied with the said report would benefit the accused. It is further argued that even the trial court has failed to take note of the said fact and also to record a finding that there is evidence to show that the said report has been received at the end of the accused/revisionist. The said safeguard is provided to the accused under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is argued that the present revision thus deserved to be allowed on the said two counts.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments and argued that the trial court has given cogent reasons for convicting the revisionist. The appellate court has also considered the matter in its true prospective and has come to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, in the matter since the milk before taking of its sample was not stirred and homogenized there are good chances of the upper part being taken from the cans which would be found deficient and further there is nothing on record to show that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been sent by the Food Inspector or received by the revisionist and as such valuable right of the accused/revisionist safeguarding his interest is violated. In view of the same, it is apparent that the milk taken by the Food Inspector in cans is not stirred and homogenized and also the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was received by him.
9. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2013 passed by A.D.J., Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2011 (Suresh Pal vs. State) and the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the IInd A.C.J.M. / Spl. Magistrate (Economic Offences), Budaun in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
10. The revisionist- Suresh Pal is already on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.
11. 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.
12. The file be consigned to records.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
September 4, 2025
AS Rathore
