Gyani Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2020

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gyani Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2020

The applicant has filed this fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 03-09-2019, in connection with Crime No.504/2019, registered at Police Station, Jaura District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273, 120-B of IPC and Sections 51 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. Earlier bail applications have been dismissed as withdrawn.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and is suffering confinement since 03-09-2019 whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that the Court statement of Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1) has taken place on 27-12- 2019 in which he did not support the story of prosecution in categorical terms and declared hostile by the prosecution. When government officer who was instrumental in taking sample and other investigation related work, has not supported the story of prosecution, applicant be given the benefit of bail. He further referred the Court statements of other witnesses from PW-2 to PW-6 to submit that they have recently deposed on oath before the Court and declared hostile.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.7342/2020 Therefore, chance of tampering with the evidence is remote. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. Thus, prayed for bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the case diary it appears that co-accused Satish Sharma is still absconding and perhaps used his absconsion to affect the witnesses and therefore, Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1) and other witnesses have been declared hostile. From possession of the applicant, several chemicals/powders were seized and Chemical Examination Report prepared by the Public Analyst on dated 19-08-2019 indicates that Test of Formaline, Test for Detergent, Test for Maltodextrin, Baudouin Test stood positive and he was using liquid shampoo, Maltodextrin and other chemicals for contaminating milk for profit, therefore, he was playing with the human lives. Therefore, his case cannot be considered lightly. Learned counsel for the State raised surprise over the statement of Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1) and the statements of Deenbandhu Sharma (PW-4) and Sandeep Sharma (PW-6) because Anil Pratap Singh Parihar is a Government Officer and it was his duty to support the case of prosecution in categorical terms and other two witnesses were seizure witnesses and their statements under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. (before the Court) were recorded and therefore, their conduct deserves deprecation. Looking to the allegation levelled on the applicant, his bail application be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.7342/2020 diary.

In the case in hand, the applicant is facing wrath of prosecution for the offences referred above which are having material bearing for human lives because practice of converting urea and chemical into milk is rampant in this Region and these chemicals have been seized from the possession of the applicant and report of Public Analyst indicates that Test of Formaline, Test for Detergent, Test for Maltodextrin, Baudouin Test stood positive. Initially police has seized the vehicle carrying all these chemicals and contaminating milk but later on Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1), Mahendra Singh Sirohiya and Ramprakash Singh Tomar AG-III appeared at Police Station Jaura and took possession of vehicle as well as goods and referred for Public Analyst at the State Food Laboratory, Bhopal. From State Food Laboratory, Bhopal report has been received in which test stood positive as referred above. Therefore, it is a fit case where the applicant should remain in confinement specially when other co-accused Satish Sharma is at large or even if he surrendered then he must have used his absconsion in affecting the witnesses.

Still another Food Safety Officer, Mahendra Singh and Ramprakash Singh Tomar AG-III as well as Investigating Officer and other police witnesses are to be examined, therefore, at this juncture it cannot be said that the applicant has good case on merits prima facie. Therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.7342/2020 Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed. At this stage, this Court has gone through the statement of Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1) as well as the statements of other witnesses Deenbandhu (PW-4) and Sandeep Sharma (PW-6). Both these witnesses (Deenbandhu and Sandeep Sharma) made their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also before the Court and now they completely changed their version, therefore, the trial Court shall always be at liberty to initiate proceeding against Deenbandhu (PW-4) and Sandeep Sharma (PW-6) who are taking Court proceedings lightly and their action is suggestive of tampering with the Administration of Justice prima facie.

So far as Food Safety Officer, Anil Pratap Singh Parihar (PW-1) is concerned he is a Government servant and therefore was duty bound to support the story of prosecution in clear terms but he was half-hearted in his statement. Therefore, the Collector, District Morena is directed to take appropriate action against the erring officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the said officer and suitable departmental action be ensured against him, if he is found to be of casual and negligent attitude.

Copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Bhopal and Director, Prosecution Bhopal for information and for ensuring compliance in a manner that suitable directions be issued to Government servants not to be casual and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C. No.7342/2020 negligent in their Court statements which may support the case of accused, especially in matters like food adulteration cases and in illegal mining cases because if Government servants would not support the case of prosecution in such cases then offences against Human Existence keep on increasing manifold.

One copy be sent to Collector, District Morena for taking action against erring officer as referred above.

Compliance report be submitted within three months before this Court and matter be listed in the month of June, 2020 under the "Caption Direction".

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil* ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2020.02.27 05:53:47

-08'00'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court