Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Mahatha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.492 of 2003
Arun Kumar Mahatha ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
05/07.09.2021 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner for offence
under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 is ex facie perverse. He submits that as the allegation ,
the petitioner, in spite of expiry of license, was running the shop
of food grains. Learned counsel submits that no food grain was
seized from the shop and no independent witness has been
examined to support the prosecution case. He also submits that
no weighting machine or weight etc. or balance has been
recovered. He submits that the petitioner has been convicted
only on the basis of prosecution report which was supported by
three witnesses. He submits that no food grain has been
recovered even from the possession of any buyer or any other
person. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has
not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He
submits that in absence of any food grain or any article having
been seized from the alleged place of occurrence, no case of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the alleged offence in
the present case is made out against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is
material contradiction so far as P.W. 2 is concerned, who had
stated in his deposition that it was food grain shop of another
person namely Arjun Mahatha, which was raided and said
Arjun Mahatha was already acquitted by the court of Sub -
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act Case No.9 of 1990. Learned counsel submits that Arjun
Mahatha has nothing to do with the shop of the petitioner and
accordingly, P.W.2 has in fact not supported the case of the
prosecution by naming Arjun Mahatha, whose shop was
raided.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and
it has come in evidence that the petitioner was found running
his shop although his license had expired. However, he does
not dispute the fact that no recovery whatsoever was made
from the shop of the petitioner including recovery of any food
grains or recovery of any balance, weight etc. for measurement
of food grain and admittedly no independent witness has been
examined and the prosecution witness have not even disclosed
the name of any independent person, who were said to be
present at the place and time of occurrence.
6. Arguments are concluded.
7. Post this case on 13.09.2021 for Judgement.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
