Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs State Of Assam on 28 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010004742014
2025:GAU-AS:14504
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./19/2014
DHRUBA TIWARI
S/O LATE PHULLAN TIWARI, R/O HAFLONG BAZAR, P.O. and P.S.
HAFLONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, HAFLONG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.F BEGUM, MRA K AHMED,MR.A MANNAF
Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 28.10.2025
Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Ms. A. M. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
State Respondents.
2. The present appeal has been instituted, with the leave of this Court,
assailing the Order dated 05.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional
District Magistrate, Dima-Hasao, Haflong, in C.R Case No.819/1996,
convicting the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.06.96, at about 11.30
a.m, Food Inspector T. Chongloi, visited the shop of the appellant, herein,
at Haflong, and collected sample of ' besan'. The said sample on collection
was sent to Public Analyst for chemical examination. The Public Analyst on
analysis of the samples so forwarded opined that the same was an old
sample infested with fungus, adulterated and unfit for human
consumption. The Analyst forwarded his report to the Local Health
Authority. The said report of the Analyst, it is found from the records, was
forwarded to the appellant, herein, under the Provisions Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner had
acknowledged receipt of the said report.
An offence report was submitted in the matter against the appellant,
herein.
During the Trial, the prosecution examined 2(two) witnesses. The
appellant, herein, thereafter was examined under Section 313 CrPC.
Page No.# 3/5
On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court was pleased vide
Judgment dated 05.12.2013, to convict the appellant, herein, under
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
On his such conviction he was sentence to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6(six) months and also for payment of fine of Rs.1000/-
(Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
further 1(one) month.
4. Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the appellant, after
attempting to argue the matter at some length has submitted that the
materials available on record, with regard to the collection of samples, as
well as the forwarding of the samples to the Analyst for analysis of the
same, reveals that it has been so done strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 1954 and there exist no material to dispute the
said position. He has further submitted that the Local Health Authority on
receipt of the report from the Analyst, had got the same duly served upon
the petitioner. He has fairly submitted that the conviction of the appellant,
herein, would not mandate any interference. However, he submits that
the appellant is presently around 77(seventy seven) years of age and is
suffering from old age ailments and accordingly, he prays that this Court
would show a leniency in the matter.
5. Ms. A. M. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has not
disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the materials coming on record.
7. This Court has perused the Trial Court Records and finds that
the samples were collected from the shop of the appellant, herein, strictly
in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1954.
Thereafter the samples so collected being forwarded to the
Page No.# 4/5
Public Analyst, the analysis, thereof, reveals that the samples to be
adulterated and unfit for human consumption. The said report was
forwarded to the Local Health Authority. The records reveals that the
report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the appellant, herein, under
the Provisions of Section 13(2), and the appellant had duly acknowledged
the receipt of the same. However, the petitioner has not exercised his
right to have the sample kept with the authorities analyzed by the Central
Forensic Laboratory.
8. In view of the above position, it is apparent that the sample as
collected from the shop of the appellant was adulterated and unfit for
human consumption. It was also found to be infested with fungus.
Accordingly, in view of the evidences coming on record, this
Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant,
herein, by the learned Trial Court under the provisions of Section 7/16 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, would not mandate any
interference.
9. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court finds that the
offence was committed in the matter by the appellant, herein, on
25.06.96, when the sample was collected from his shop. Long
19(nineteen) years have lapsed since the date of commission of the
offence in the matter by the appellant, herein.
This Court also notices that the appellant, herein, has not been
prosecuted for a similar offence either prior to the one involved in the
present proceedings and/or during the pendency of the present
proceedings.
It is also found that the appellant has been litigating the matter
for the last 12(twelve) years in the present appeal, before this Court.
In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered
Page No.# 5/5
view that the appellant, herein, is entitled to be extended with the
benefits under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. Accordingly, the sentencing of the appellant, stands modified
and instead of imprisonment, the appellant is directed to be extended
with the benefits under the Act of 1958. However, the fine as imposed
upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court and in default of payment of
the same, the direction to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1(one)
month is, however, not interfered with.
11. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the
appellant, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand)each, along with a personal bond before the
learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dima
Hasao, Haflong, and undertake, to the effect that the appellant shall
maintain peace and good behavior during the period of 1(one) year from
the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the appellant
within a period of 2(two) months from today, along with the deposit of
the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide the Order
dated 05.12.2013.
12. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal
Appeal stands disposed of.
13. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a
copy of this order for information and necessary action.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
