Court No. - 78
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 37 of 1982
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Suraj Prasad
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A., A.G.A
Counsel for Respondent :- R.R. Srivastava, Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned AGA, Shri S.N. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the State appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent - Suraj Prasad and perused the record of this appeal.
The present appeal was filed on behalf of the State under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. in year 1982. This appeal was filed assailing the judgement and order dated 23.06.1981 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate, Hamirpur under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the impugned order the respondent Suraj Prasad was found not guilty by the Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charges levelled upon him under Section 7/16 of the Act.
This appeal was preferred by the State against the impugned order of acquittal of accused respondent in trial proceedings and leave to appeal was granted by this Court, vide order dated 16.02.1982.
In brief the prosecution story is that an inspection was made by Food Inspector Shri Chhote Lal on 09.11.1977 at 12:00 A.M. at the shop of respondent (Suraj Prasad) in market Sumerpur. The Food Inspector found the respondent (accused) selling linseed oil (Alasi Ka Tale) without having a license to sell the said oil (Alasi Ka Tale). The Inspector introduced himself to be "Food Inspector" and gave notice Farm No. 6 to the respondent marked as Ext. Ka -1. For a sample (namoona) 375 grams of oil was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused after giving him Rs. 3.75 and a receipt was obtained from the accused, which was marked as Ext. Ka - 2. Having completed all the necessary formalities, the said sample of oil was sent to Lucknow for its analysis and chemical examination. Thereafter, a report from the public analyst (Lok Vishleshak) was received back, which is dated 28.12.1977 and numbered as 33216. The said public analyst report speaks that there was about 14 per cent linseed oil (teesi ka tale) in the said sample and the said report also shows that the red units of the said linseed oil (teesi ka tale) were found to be more than that of sesame oil (til ka tale) which contains about 150 units. Thereafter, having received permission from the concerned Medical Officer on the basis of the said public analyst report to prosecute the accused, criminal case was instituted against accused Suraj Prasad.
The accused denied the charges levelled against him under Sections 7/16 of the Act and he claimed to be tried.
The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as three prosecution witnesses, namely, PW - 1 Shri Chhote Lal (Food Inspector); PW - 2 Suraj Singh Vaccinator (eye witness of the incident); and PW - 3 Nathu Ran (Khadya Lipik - Food Clerk). During the course of argument before the Trial Court, the plea raised on behalf of the accused was whether the same sample was sent to public analyst, Lucknow the same day according to the rules or the next working day. The PW-1 Shri Chhote Lal (Food Inspector) in reply to this plea had stated in his cross examination that "Mere Samane Nahin Bheje Gaye. Khadya Lipik Record Kekhkar Bata Sakata Hai Ki Kis Dinank Ko Bheje Gaye The". On the other hand PW - 2 (Khadya Lipik) namely Nathu Ram has deposed in his cross examination that "Mujhe Dhyan Nahin Hai Ki Is Mukadme Mein Namuna Karyalay Se Bheja Gaya Tha Ya Nahi........" Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged sample of oil was sent to public analyst at Lucknow the same day or the next working day.
The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the report of public analyst and in its judgment and order has recorded a categorical finding that the public analyst has failed to report as to which of oils was mixed into the linseed oil. The relevant extract of the impugned judgment and order reads as under:-
"ललोक वविश्ललेषक ककी ररिपलोरर कले अननुससारि नममूनले मम 14% ततीसती कसा तलेल हह ततीसती औरि अलसती कसा तलेल एक हती तलेल कले दलो नसाम हह। ललोक वविश्ललेषक ककी ररिपलोरर कले अननुससारि नममूनले मम 14% ततीसती कसा तलेल हह ततीसती औरि अलसती कसा तलेल एक हती तलेल कले दलो नसाम हह। अततः ललोक वविश्ललेषक नले यह स्पष्ट नहह ललखसा वक अलसती यसा ततीसती कले तलेल मम वकसकसा तलेल वमलसा थसा। ऐससा प्रततीत हलोतसा हह वक ररिपलोरर ललखतले समय कहह भमूल हलो गयती हह। अन्यथसा ररिपलोरर मम यह अअंवकत नहह हलोतसा "वतल कले तलेल ककी मसातसा १५० लसाल यमूवनर सले अलधिक हह।" इस प्रकसारि ललोक वविश्ललेषक नले जलो ररिपलोरर प्रस्तनुत ककी हह विह अस्पष्ट एविअं भसामक हह।"
Since the aforesaid report of the public analyst was confusive and inexplicit, the Trial Court found that the charges levelled against the accused of committing offence under Section 7/16 of the Act were false and could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, by the impugned judgment and order the accused respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
The learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity factual or legal in the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused Suraj Prasad of the charges levelled against him.
This Court has gone through the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and it is found that when a sample of any article of food or adulterant is taken under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 10, the food inspector shall, by the immediately succeeding working day, send a sample of the article of food or adulterant or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the public analyst for the local area concerned. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order it reveals that the sample was not sent the day when it was collected or by the next working day. The learned Trial Court has specifically observed in the impugned judgement that sample was collected on 9.11.1977 and it was received in the office of the public analyst on 21.11.1977. It clearly shows that the samples were not sent the same day (when it was collected) or the next working day to the chemical analyst, which is clear cut violation of the mandatory provision of law prescribed in Section 11(3) of the Act.
Moreover, the report of the public analyst was confusive and inexplicit and it failed to show that there was any adulteration made by the accused in the linseed oil (alasi ka tale). Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
The lower court record, if any, shall be sent to the concerned Trial Court immediately.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 LBY
Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.02.25 17:07:00 IST Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad