Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Prabhudayal on 25 April, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HONâBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
Cri.A. No.696/1999
APPELLANT: The State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
RESPONDENT: Prabhudayal S/o Jagga Yadav,
Aged 30 years, R/o Pipariya,
Police Station and District-Shahdol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. None for the respondent/accused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(J U D G M E N T) Delivered on: 28.04.16 Through this appeal appellant/State of M.P. has assailed the judgment dated 06.02.1998, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Appeal No.119/97, whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Actâ) .
2. The prosecution story is that on 21.03.86, on suspicion of adulterated milk, in a raid conducted by flying squad of Food Department, form No.6 was given to accused and 750 gm.milk was purchased and it was packed in three bottles and sealed. Form No.7 and one sample of milk was sent for its chemical examination, and the other two samples were kept in the office of Food Officer. The milk was found adulterated, therefore, after getting the permission for prosecution and after intimating the accused, charge sheet was filed.
3. The accused abjured the guilt hence he was put to trial.
4. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined four witnesses and exhibited the documents P/1 to P/16. During accused statement he denied all the evidence putforth against him and his defence was of false implication.
5. Learned CJM, Shahdol vide judgment dated 09.08.97 passed in Criminal Case No.797/86 has convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. In appeal, Learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol acquitted the accused from the charge of offence punishable under the aforesaid section. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/State of M.P. has come up in this appeal.
6. Shri R.N.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State submits that the learned appellate Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused in aforesaid offence. He further submits that learned Sessions Judge has wrongly held that there is interpolation in the memo of sample, therefore, the whole story is doubtful. He points out that in para 6 of the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court, it is held by the Court itself that with regard to over- writing in dates , star witness B.D.Sharma (PW.2) was not cross-examined. On the aforesaid grounds, learned PL submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court suffers with surmises and conjectures, therefore, it may be set aside.
7. None appeared on behalf of the accused though served.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State at length, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the judgment of acquittal of the accused, warrants no interference.
9. Learned trial Court after elaborate scrutiny of depositions of the prosecution witnesses and after minute perusal of prosecution documents - the Form (Ex.P/1), receipt of the payment of price of purchased milk (Ex.P/2), and inspection memo (Ex.P/3), all are basic documents of the prosecution itself, has rightly found that there is correction/over-writing in earlier date which was 21.04.85 which is corrected as date of incident 21.03.86. This irregularity itself can be the sole ground for acquittal of accused.
10. Beside the aforesaid, learned appellate Court has also rightly pointed out that there was irregularity with regard to process of taking the milk sample.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/State could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in an appeal against acquittal is not called for.
12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion of acquittal of the accused. The present appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
13. Learned Courts below be intimated forthwith.
Appeal dismissed.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge Jk