Chhotu Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3485 Jhar

                                                  Cr. Revision No.519 of 2016
                                     -1-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Cr. Revision No.519 of 2016
                        ----------

Chhotu Sao                              ... Petitioner
                       -Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                              ...    Opp. Party
                                 ----------

CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                 ----------
For the Petitioner     : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey-2, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. A. K. Tiwari, A.P.P
                             ---------
C.A.V. On : 11/07/2023                 Pronounced On: 13.09.2023

        Heard the parties.

The petitioner Chhotu Sao has filed this application against the judgment dated 29.01.2016, passed by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No.141/2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Hazaribag dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2010 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribag in G. Case No.100/2008, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I for six months along-with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the aforesaid offence. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for two months.

The case of the prosecution is that Food Inspector namely Mrs. Gulab Lakra inspected the shop of the petitioner on 30.01.2008 at about 2:00 P.M. During inspection, it was found that the petitioner was selling 'Jai Matadi Biscuits' which was misbranded and was not labeled in accordance with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence available on record have come to the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Cr. Revision No.519 of 2016

report of Public Analyst as mandated under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was not complied with as the report of Public Analyst was not given to the petitioner. It was submitted that the compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was mandatory and failure to comply with this provision, shall vitiate the trial.

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2020) 15 SCC 763.

Mrs. Gulab Lakra, Food Inspector, Hazaribag has been examined as P.W.1. She has proved the prosecution report, which is Exhibit-1. She has further proved Form-VI, which is Exhibit-2. She has stated that on 30.01.2008, she had gone to grocery shop of the petitioner and purchased three packets of biscuits. She was given receipt by the petitioner. She has proved the copy of the receipt, which is Exhibit-3. She has further stated that she sealed all the three packets of biscuits separately and labeled them and prepared memorandum. She has proved the memorandum, which is Exhibit-4. She has further proved the report of Public Analyst, which is Exhibit-5. She has stated that from the report of Public Analyst it appears that packets of biscuits sold by the petitioner was misbranded and not labeled.

In her cross-examination, she has admitted that no adulteration was found in the biscuits, seized by her. She has also admitted that she has neither signed the memorandum, prepared by her nor she had obtained the signature of the petitioner or any other witnesses. The memorandum regarding the purchase of biscuits is Exhibit-4, which does not bear the signature of the petitioner nor the signatures of any independent witnesses, which is violative of Provision under Section 10(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

It further appears that by not supplying the report of Public Analyst to the petitioner, Provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has also not been complied with.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijendra Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 763 has held that where the analyst report has not been served and the sample was not taken in appropriate manner, it will be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has not proved Cr. Revision No.519 of 2016

the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and the conviction is not justified.

In the present case, as discussed above, there is violation of provision of Section 10(2) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is mandatory in nature.

Accordingly, the entire prosecution case stands vitiated. This revision application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-