High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sant Lal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1748 of 1985  RD-AH 8821 (9 May 2007)
Criminal Revision No. 1748 of 1985
Sant Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1989 whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist in case No.685 of 1984 by the Munsif Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 25.4.1985 for offence u/s 7/16 of the under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The relevant facts are that on 30.12.1985 at about 1.45 A.M. Sri K.P.Srivastava Food Inspector took the sample of milk from the revisionist when the revisionist was carrying 60 Kgs of milk for sale. The public analyst reported the adulteration in the said milk. Sri K.P.Srivastafa Food Inspector therefore filed the complaint and examined himself as P.W. 1. P.W.2 is Wazir Ashraf Ali ( Food clerk). It was upon the evidence of these two witnesses that the revisionist was convicted u/s 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced to 3 months R.I. and was fined to Rs. 500/-. The appeal filed against the trial court judgment dated 25.4.1985 was dismissed, hence this revision.
I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri R.C.Srivastava as well as learned A.G.A. and have also perused the record.
The revisionist's counsel argued that there is no compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act; that the conviction of the revisionist was not proper for want of the said compliance.
The purpose and object of Section 10(7) of the Act is to ensure the fairness of the action taken by the Food Inspector. The purpose and object of Section 10(7) of the Act is bound to frustrate if the person called upon by the Food Inspector u/s10(7) of the Act is not produced in court to affirm on oath that he remained present at the time when the action by the Food Inspector was taken and that he made signatures over the relevant papers.
The learned A.G.A. argued that the persons of the locality normally decline to give evidence against the revisionist on account of their sweet relationship with the revisionist or on account of the influence of the revisionist over the witnesses .
The sample was taken in the locality where the revisionist had no house, shop or factory. Therefore, there was no occasion for the persons of the locality to have any sweet relationship with the revisionist. The revisionist appears to be a poor person who was carrying only 60 lts. of milk for sale. Such person may hardly have any influence over the witnesses of the other locality. The omission to produce the witness called from the locality cast a doubt upon the truthfulness of the prosecution version and upon the fairness of the action taken by the Food Inspector. The production of such witness was further imperative in view of the fact that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were of the common department who were bound to support the prosecution version initiated by the Food Inspector of their own department.
In view of what has been discussed above the omission to produce the witness called u/s 10(7) of the Act raises a grave doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version and the fairness of the action taken by the Food Inspector.
The revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not to surrender.
Certify the order to the court below within two weeks.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.