Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2036 of 2002 Revisionist :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- G.P. Dikshit Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Case is called out in the revised list.
Neither any one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist nor any request has been made for the adjourment.
In the present case vide order dated 10.12.2002 this Court has directed the opposite parties to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed on the other hand learned A.G.A. has stated that matter can be argued without counter affidavit.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 29.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Itawah dismissing the criminal appeal no. 58 of 1999 arising out of the order passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Itawah, under Section 07/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentencing the revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in criminal case no. 753/94.
The brief facts of the case is that on 20.05.1993 at about 02:20 pm the Food Inspector made an inspection in the shop of the revisionist and found that revisionist was selling the Laddu prepared by mustered oil and on the suspicion of adulteration he purchased 600 grams of laddu and sent if for the testing in Jan Visleshak, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow by ceiling the same.
From the perusal of the report, it was found that the revisionist was using Khsari ( Letras Strides) in preparation of laddus which is a prohibited item under the Act.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judicial Magistrate ( Economic Offences) in criminal case no. 753/94 registered under Section 07/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act held that revisionist's is guilty of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and passed a judgement and order dated 04.12.1999 against the revisionist convicting him for rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.
Against the judgement dated 04.12.1999 the revisionist preferred an appeal no. 58/1997 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the ground taken in the present criminal revision has been dealt in the appellate order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah and drawn the attention of this Court about the relevant portion of the judgement wherein the compliance of Section 13(2) and 10(7) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act has been made or dealt with for the perusal provisions are quoted below:-
"Section 10(13) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.
Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall [call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures."
After hearing the learned A.G.A. and going through the record available as well as judgement impugned in the present criminal revision, I have found that the substantial compliance of Section 13(2) was send to the revisionist which has not been discharged by the revisionist before any Court. As far as compliance of Section 10(7) is concerned that point has also been made by revisionist in the appeal and the same has been dealt with by the Court below and giving a satisfactory finding and in support of this relied upon the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court which is also not been disputed by the revisionist by taking any ground against such finding in the judgement impugned.
The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of the order passed by this court on 10.12.2002.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the revisionist is on bail from last more than 17 years and has already settled with their family and it will be harsh to send him after more than 17 years from the date of bail granted by this Court after 26 years from the date of incident.
However, considering the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist and looking to the age and position of the revisionist and taking into account that the incident is more than 26 years old and has come for hearing after 17 years of the filing of the revision, it is contended that rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into a fine of Rs. 15,000/- deposited within three months and it shall be go to the State .
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall be taken custody to serve the sentence as order passed by the lower Appellate Court.
In view of above, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for its compliance.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Sachin