Krishna Gopal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 540 MP

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        CRR No. 43 of 2023
                                          (KRISHNA GOPAL MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 10-01-2023
                                Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the applicant.

                                Shri Prasanjit Chaterjit - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Admit.

Let the record of the Courts below be requisitioned.

Heard on I.A.No.260/2023, application for taking documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, aforesaid I.A. is allowed and documents are taken on record.

Also heard on I.A.No.151 of 2023 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant Krishna Gopal Mishra.

Vide judgment dated 30.12.2022 passed by JMFC, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.1601/2011, the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7(1) r/w 16 (1)(A)(1) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act

of 1954) and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine 15 days. The conviction and sentences imposed upon the applicant has been affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.100087/2016, vide judgment dated 30.12.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol. Against the impugned judgment of appellate Court, this criminal revision has been filed.

As per the prosecution case, on 05.07.2011, Food Inspector Brajesh Kumar Vishwakarma apprehended the applicant who was selling cow milk in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/11/2023 10:08:16 AM

containers and upon suspicion milk being adulterated, sample was taken and after receiving the report of milk being adulterated, the permission was obtained from Chief Medical Officer and case has been registered for the offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(i)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that learned Courts below have failed to consider that there is no valid compliance of Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act 1955. He also raised the ground of non- compliance of rule 9B of rules made therein-under which provides the manner

to send the report to person concerned by authority submitting that the report of Public Analyst was not supplied to petitioner as a result of which right to get the samples analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory has been defeated. Herein, I deem it fit to quote the Rule 9B which reads as under :

9B Local (Health) authority to send report to person concerned- The Local (Health) Authority shall (within a period of ten days) after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of rule 7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the food inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act:

Provided that where the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, and no prosecution is intended under Sub-section (2), or no action is intended under sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the Act, the Local (Health) Authority shall intimate the result to the Vendor from whom the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/11/2023 10:08:16 AM

sample has been taken and also the person, been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act, within 10 days from the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst"

He further submits that local (Health) Authority should forward the copy of report of public analyzed to applicant within a period of 10 days after the institution of prosecution but herein the prosecution has been lodged on 30.09.2011 but as per (Ex.P/79) the report of analyst was posted on 17.10.2011 which makes it crystal clear that rules were violated. Under these circumstances, counsel prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the bail application submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.

Heard.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the quantum of sentence imposed upon the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of the applicant deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I.A.No.151/2023 is allowed and it is directed that on his

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the execution of jail sentence of the applicant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this revision for his appearance before the trial Court on 29.08.2023 and thereafter on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/11/2023 10:08:16 AM

List for final hearing in due course.

I.A.No.151/2023 is disposed off.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE

vai

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/11/2023 10:08:16 AM