Allahabad High Court
Maan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:53013 Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2209 of 2014 Revisionist :- Maan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Sri Lakshman Singh, Advocate files his vakalatnama on behalf of the revisionist, the same is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the records.
4. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused by the Court.
5. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-Maan Singh against the judgement and order dated 18.7.2014, passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2011 (Maan Singh Vs. State) under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun whereby the Appellate Court extended the sentence and penalty as one year R.I. and Rs.10,000/- fine against the judgement and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No.2168 of 1990 (State Vs. Maan Singh) under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced for 6 month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 2 months additional imprisonment.
6. The facts of the case are that the Food Inspector found the revisionist on 8.7.1990 at about 10.00 a.m. while he was selling milk in three containers which was intended for sale. The food Inspector introduced himself to the accused and asked license for sale to which he denied. The complainant purchased 750 gram milk of one container by giving Rs.3.75/-for sample and then kept in three bottles in equal quantity after mixing 40% formalin each was added for preserving it which was then sent to the public analyst for chemical analysis who by his report reported it to be adulterated as it contained 34 per cent less milk solid non-fat in it. The complainant then took sanction from the C.M.O. concerned and filed a complaint against the revisionist/accused. In the trial court the complainant P.V. Bajpai, Food Inspector, was examined as P.W.-1 and Hari Mohan Verma, Food Clerk, was examined as P.W.-2. The accused/revisionist in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and stated of false implication. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist as stated above. The appeal was preferred against the same which came to be dismissed and extended the sentence and penalty as one year R.I. and Rs.10,000/-after which the present revision has been filed against both the impugned judgement and orders.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that P.V. Bajpai, Food Inspector, was examined as PW-1. He states of taking sample of goat milk from container allegedly belonging to the revisionist. P.W.2, the Food Clerk in the office of C.M.O concerned states that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to accused. It is argued that no notice under Section 13 (2) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been received by the revisionist. It is submitted that the trial court has while addressing the said issue stated that a presumption under the General Clauses Act would lie regarding service of notice within 30 days if the same has not been returned back. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show conclusively that the said notice has been served upon the revisionist. It is submitted that the said notice has not been received by the revisionist. It is argued that since there is nothing credible to show regarding service of notice on the revisionist and further there is nothing to show that the said notice has been served on the revisionist which is mandatory. The revisionist would be seriously prejudiced as he did not get a chance to get the sample retested in the Central Food Laboratory, as such his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act was defeated. On the said count itself the prosecution of the revisionist is bad in the eyes of law which deserves to be set-aside.
8. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments and argued that the trial court has given cogent reasons for convicting the revisionist. The appellate court has also considered the matter in its true prospective and has come to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that in the present case notice was sent to revisionist but the said notice was not served upon the revisionist. The purpose of Section under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954 is defeated. On the said count the prosecution of the revisionist is bad in the eyes of law which deserves to be set-aside.
10. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 18.7.2014, passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jalaun at Orai and the impugned judgement and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
11. The revisionist-Maan Singh is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
12. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this judgement along with the trial court records to the concerned trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action.
13. The file be consigned to records.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 5.3.2024 Gaurav Kuls