Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Maqsood v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1230 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 9785 (22 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.11

Criminal Revision No. 1230 of 1986

Maqsood Vs. State of U.P.


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.1986 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.307 of 1984 whereby the Sessions Judge, has dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist by the trial court by its order dated 6.11.1984  in criminal case No.356 of 1981.

The relevant facts briefly are that on 29.12.1979 at about 10.30 A.M. the Food Inspector Aqeel Ahmad Khan took the sample of milk from the accused revisionist Maqsood and sent the said milk for its examination to the public analyst . The public analyst reported that there was adulteration in the milk. P.W.1 Aqeel Ahmad Khan therefore filed a complaint and examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined  Fateh Singh (Food Clerk) as P.W.2. It was upon their evidence that the trial court found the revisionist guilty of the offence u/s 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced him to the rigorous imprisonment  of 6 months and a fine of Rs.1000/-.In default of payment of fine the accused was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment  of 3 months. The appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed  hence this revision.

The learned counsel for the revisionist contended to which the learned A.G.A. concedes that no public witness was called upon by the Food Inspector at the time of action taken by him. Needless to say that no public witness was examined in the court.

The purpose and object of Section 10(7) of the Act is to ensure the fairness in the action taken by the Food Inspector. If the public witness is not called upon by the Food Inspector in compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act or is not produced in the court such omission is bound to cast a doubt regarding the fairness of the action taken by the Food Inspector and the truthfulness of the prosecution version.

Learned A.G.A. said that the provisions contained in Section 10(7) of the Act are only directive and not mandatory. He argued that due to the witnesses' cordial or sweet relationship with the accused or due to the accused's influence over the persons of the locality, none was ready to become the witness.

The revisionist is a poor person who used to sell milk on his bicycle  from door to door and from Mohalla to Mohalla to earn his livelihood. Such person may hardly have any influence to exert upon the witnesses of the locality where the action against the revisionist was taken.

The revisionist had no house, shop or factory in the locality where the sample of milk was taken. Therefore, there was no question that the person of the locality had any relationship with the accused which caused the witnesses to decline to give  evidence against the accused. The argument of the learned A.G.A. are therefore not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The omission to call the public witness to remain present at the time when the action against the accused was taken by the Food Inspector is bound to cast a doubt regarding the truthfullness  of the prosecution version. It further cast a doubt regarding the fairness of the action taken by the Food Inspector.

The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court  is hereby set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. His bail bonds are cancelled. The sureties are discharged. He need not to surrender.

Communicate this order to the court below within three weeks.  

Dt. 22.5.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.