Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 3567 of 2022
(MAHESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 19-09-2022
Shri Amar Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, G.A.. appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard on the question of admission.
The criminal revision is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.
Also heard on I.A. No.12496/2022, first application under Section 397(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence to applicant.
T h e applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 16(1)(a)(1) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1
year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
A s per prosecution story, on 06/10/2009, a joint team appointed by
Collector, District Shajapur(M.P.) inspected Manorama Foods Pvt. Ltd. Maxi.
During inspection, the petitioner met them and introduced himself as the
manager of Manorama Foods Pvt. Ltd. Maxi. Thereafter, during the inspection
of the factory, 13 different brands of ghee was found stored. The respondent
No.1 has taken the sample of brand Supreme Pure Groundnut Oil after
completing all the formalities. Thereafter, the samples were sealed and were
sent for a report from public analyst stating that the samples were found
adulterated. After due investigation, the non-applicant No.1 obtained sanction
for prosecution and has filed the complaint before the Learned trial Court.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.09.19
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
15:02:55 IST
and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The learned Courts below
erred seriously in ignoring the legal and mandatory provisions of Sections 13
and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Learned counsel for
the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
o f Vijendra Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 763 ,
R.Banerjee & Ors. Vs. H.D. Dubey & Ors.[1992 SCC(Cri) 412] and
Narayan Prasad Sahu Vs. State of M.P.[(2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 184]. He
further submitted that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove whether the
accused was the Director or Manager at the time of commission of alleged
offence. No pleadings or averments are made in this regard in complaint filed
by the food inspector. It is also submitted that mere dispatch of report does not
amount to compliance with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954. There is no evidence to show that the public analyst report was ever
served on the applicant by any mode. No evidence was brought on record to
indicate that public analyst's report which is claimed to have been dispatched
was actually served or delivered to the applicant. He further submits that the
final hearing of the criminal revision is likely to take considerable time. Under
such circumstances, he prays that the application filed by the applicant for
suspension of sentence be allowed and he be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State opposed
the prayer and prays for rejection of the application.
O n due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
after perusal of the complaint and statement of prosecution witnesses so also
the documents filed by the applicant and also the nature of incident, I am of the
opinion that the applicant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.09.19
15:02:55 IST
Thus, the application (IA No.12496/2022) for suspension of sentence is
allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her
appearance before this Court/Registry on 12/12/2022 and on all other
subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution
of substantial jail sentence imposed on the applicant shall remain suspended, till
the final disposal of this revision.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.09.19
15:02:55 IST
