THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.450 of 2007 Date:09.07.2014 Between:
Bikshapathi . Petitioner.
AND The State of A.P., thorough Health Food Inspector, Kazipet, South Central Railway, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.450 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 22-01-2007 in Crl.A.No.286/2006 on the file of Special Judge For Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad whereunder judgment dated 13-07- 2006 in C.C.No.403/2004 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Food Inspector, Kazipet filed complaint against the revision petitioner contending that he is running a tea-stall on the railway platform of Jangoan Railway Station and on 30- 08-2003, at about 10:00 A.M., Food Inspector inspected the tea-stall of the accused and purchased 750 grams of Urad Dal, which was kept in the tea-stall of the accused for preparation and sale of Vada to the public. After purchase of the same, he has divided it into samples duly following procedure and one such sample was sent to analyst, who opined that sample was not conforming to the standard, therefore, ‘adulterated’ and when the accused was asked to give the details from where he got this material, he could not give any address, on the other hand, he informed the food inspector that he lost the bill and particulars on that the food inspector filed complaint contending that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFA Act’). On these allegations, trial is conducted in which two witnesses are examined and 20 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution, whereas no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of the accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of PFA Act and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that Food Inspector-
P.W.1 has not called any independent witnesses and his attendar is taken as mediator and except the interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 & 2, there is no other evidence. It is further contended that analyst report-Ex.P13 is incomplete since all the prescribed tests required for the product are not conducted. It is further contended that the material seized from the accused is not meant for sale and it is only kept for preparation of food article, therefore, the provisions of PFA Act are not attracted. It is further submitted that accused is not the owner of the tea-stall and no material is produced to show that accused is owner of the tea-stall. It is further contended that both trial Court and appellate Court have not considered these aspects and simply accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and convicted the revision petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the very same objections are raised before the appellate Court and the appellate Judge considered every objection and overruled them and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the appellate Court. He further submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have concurrently held that the accused committed offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of PFA Act and there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of Courts below are proper, legal and correct?
7. Point:- According to prosecution, on 30-08-2003, P.W.1 visited the tea-stall of accused and purchased Urad Dal (black gram dall) meant for preparation of Vada to be sold to the public in the railway station and when that Urad Dal was sent for test, the analyst found that the Urad Dal is not of standard one. One of the objections of the revision petitioner is that analyst has not conducted all the tests as required under the PFA Act and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. From the record, it is clear that a notice under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act was given to the accused and the said cover returned with an endorsement that the addressee refused to receive. So refusal is to be treated as service and the accused has not filed any petition to send the other sample to the Central Laboratory and considering these aspects, the appellate Court held that the objection raised on behalf of accused is not tenable. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any incorrectness in the finding and observation of the appellate Court. The appellate Court also examined the relevant provisions relating to the test to be conducted on Urad Dal and held that the analyst conducted all the tests as prescribed under the PFA Act, therefore, the objection of the accused is not at all tenable. Here in the revision also, except taking a plea for the sake of defence, nothing is placed on record to show that analyst has not done all the tests required under the PFA Act and Rules. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor the objection of the revision petitioner is not tenable.
8. The other grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner are the same that were raised before the appellate Court and the learned appellate Judge examined each objection thoroughly with reference to the evidence & law and discarded the objection. I do not find any wrong appreciation or wrong interpretation of the facts and law by the learned appellate Judge. On the other hand, his reasoning is sound and I do not find any incorrect findings or wrong appreciation of evidence.
9. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and that the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court.
11. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:09.07.2014 mrb