Telangana High Court
Baman Pattu Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 6 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1233 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 23.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2011
on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad
(for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment
dated 25.11.2011 in C.C.No.303 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor (for short, "the trial
Court").
2. Heard Mr. Sainath, learned counsel representing
Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent State.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 05.02.2008, the
Food Inspector, Division III, Adilabad District visited the shop of
the accused i.e., B. Santosh Kirana and found him transacting
business. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his identity and
stated that he was the Proprietor of the said shop but failed to
show his license of gram panchayat, APGST etc. PW1, who is the
Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused in the presence
of panch witnesses. During the course of inspection, the
Inspector found the stock of 40 kgs of Dal in an open gunny bag
without any label declaration. On enquiry, the accused informed
him that it was red gram dal kept for human consumption but
failed to disclose the source of supply.
4. PW1 with an intention to lift the sample of red gram dal for
analysis purpose, purchased 1500 gms of red gram dal from the
said stock and paid Rs.57/- to the accused. He prepared form-VI
notice and served it on the accused under proper proof and
acknowledgment. He informed the accused that the so called red
gram dal would be sent to Public Analyst State Food Laboratory,
Hyderabad for analysis.
5. On analysis, the Public Analyst State Food Laboratory,
furnished his opinion stating that the sample of red gram dal
was found to be adulterated as it contained synthetic food colour
Tartrazine. Therefore, the report was forwarded to PW1 for taking
further action.
6. The trial Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2011 in
C.C.No.303 of 2008 found the accused guilty for the offence
under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(j) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") and violation of Rules
23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for
short, "the Rules") and held that the accused was punishable for
the offence under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Act and sentenced him
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another
fifteen days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an
appeal.
7. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed
the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Assailing the same, the present Revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed
their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the
impugned judgment.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the
trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon appreciating the
evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their
respective judgments and the interference of this Court is
unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
10. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined the
Food Inspector as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of
the defence, none were examined and no document was marked.
Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court observed that Ex P17 i.e., acknowledgment of the
notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, clearly stated that the
accused had a shop and he himself acknowledged the notice
which was sent to the address of Santhosh Kirana, Indervelly.
Ex P2 cash receipts also contained the signatures of the accused
wherein it was clear that the accused sold 1500 gms of Red Gram
Dal to PW1 by taking Rs.57/- from PW1. Ex P3 also contained
the signatures of accused. Therefore, the recitals of Exs.P2 and
P3 showed that the accused sold Red Gram Dal to PW1 and he
was served the Form VI notice under Ex P3.
11. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P2 to P5 clearly
showed that PW1 visited the shop of the accused and purchased
1500 gms of Red Gram Dal by paying cash of Rs.57/-. As per the
report of a public analyst Ex P11, the sample contained Synthetic
Food Colour Tartrazine and the same was found to be
adulterated. The trial Court also observed that there were no
latches on the part of PW1 with regard to procedural aspects. If
at all the accused denied the signatures on Exs.2, 3, 5 and 17, he
would have taken steps to send those signatures for expert's
opinion. But accused had not taken such steps. Accused also
failed to send his second sample to the Central Food Laboratory
for analysis to prove his contentions. Therefore, the trial Court
found that the accused committed the alleged offences and
rendered the judgment cited supra.
12. In the appeal, the appellate Court also found that any
addition of colouring matter to the food article except as
specifically permitted by the Rules enshrined under the Act,
would amount to adulteration and any person shall be liable
under Section 16(i)(a) of the Act. Therefore, taking into
consideration, the evidence of PW1 and relying upon the decision
passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Potta
Butchi Venkatraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, the appellate
Court observed that the accused failed to establish that the
adulteration was solely due to natural causes which are beyond
the control of human agency. Therefore, the appellate Court
dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment passed by the
trial Court.
2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 852 (AP)
13. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 27.07.2012 suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone
imposed against the petitioner, pending Revision and enlarged
him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- by him
with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
14. In the present case on hand, both the Courts found the
petitioner guilty for the offences alleged under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, which finding, in my considered view,
does not call for any interference, in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
15. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere
with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts.
16. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh Kumar 2 and
upon considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental
agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court and as no other crime is stated to have been registered
against the petitioner herein with regard to the offences of similar
(2006) 6 SCC 1
kind, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence
imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by him.
17. The petitioner is further directed to pay an enhanced fine
amount of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order.
18. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid order, the
judgment dated 23.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2011
on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad
stands good in all respects.
19. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case,
in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.03.2024
ESP
