Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158945
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2024 of 2017
Ram Swaroop
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. The trial court records have been received which are tagged with the file of this revision which have also been perused along with records of the present revision.
2. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-Ram Swaroop against the judgement and order dated 1.3.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rath Hamirpur in Criminal Complaint No.539 of 2001 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swaroop) whereby the revisionist-accused has been convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 16(i)(a)(i)(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to 10 days further simple imprisonment and further against the judgement and order dated 30.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2013 (Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. and another) by which the said appeal has been dismissed and the judgement and order of the trial court concerned dated 1.3.2013 has been affirmed.
3. The facts of the case are that on 16.9.1981 at about 7.30 a.m., the applicant was seen carrying in 3 canes about 25 k.g. buffalo milk on a bicycle in village Sarsai on Rath road near Hanuman Mandir for sale. Jay Prakash Verma, the Food Inspector introduced himself and asked him about it on which the accused stated that the same is being taken for sale. Form VI was prepared by the Food Inspector and the accused was informed that a sample of the said milk is to be sent for analysis. Copy of it was given to the accused and his signatures were obtained on another copy of it. The Food Inspector then purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk by giving price of Rs.1.60/-. The receipt regarding it was prepared and got signed by the accused. The milk as purchased was then distributed and kept in three bottles and sealed as per rules. The same was sent along with a memo and Form VII by registered post to the Public Analyst, Lucknow. The other bottles were kept in the office of the Health Officer. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 23.11.1981 found milk fat to be 3.8% and non-fatty solid to be 9% and thus opined that fat is deficient by 37% in the said sample. Sanction was obtained from the CMO concerned.
4. A complaint dated 2.5.1983 was thus filed against the revisionist before the court concerned. The complainant Jay Prakash Verma, the Food Inspector was examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused in his statement denied the prosecution case.
6. Charge vide order dated 15.11.1995 was framed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur against the accused-revisionist for breach of Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Act and Rule 44 punishable under Section 16(a)(i)(ii) of the Act. The charge was read and explained to the accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
7. The statement of Jay Prakash Verma was recorded further as P.W.1 under Section 246 Cr.P.C.
8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution case and then the trial court convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid.
9. Before the trial court the Food Inspector stated of collecting the sample from the accused-revisionist on the said date and time, sealing the same and sending it for analysis. He states of the report of the Public Analyst being received, sanction being obtained from the C.M.O concerned and then filing of the present complaint. The trial court then convicted the accused-revisionist as above.
10. An appeal was preferred against the said judgement and order of conviction but the same was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 30.5.2017 by the appellate court and the judgement and order dated 1.3.2013 of the trial court was affirmed. The present revision has thus been filed before this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has raised a single argument before this Court. It is submitted that there is no compliance at all of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is further submitted that P.W.1, the Food Inspector is the only witness examined before the trial court who has also in his statement not stated of sending the sanction and report of the Public Analyst to the accused-revisionist for exercising his right for getting the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory. It is further submitted that Section 13(2) of the Act is a mandatory provision and any violation or non-compliance of the same would render the accused to have his valuable right of defence defeated. It is further submitted that that in the present matter, no such report was forwarded and sent to the accused-revisionist as compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act and thus the valuable right of the accused for getting the sample retested at the Central Food Laboratory gets defeated. Even P.W.1, the Food Inspector who was the sole witness examined before the trial court has not stated that any report under Section 13(2) of the Act has been forwarded and sent to the accused-revisionist. It is further submitted that the judgement and order of the trial court is silent with regards to the fact regarding compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the said ground was taken before the appellate court but the appellate court in a very cryptic manner gave its finding that since the accused has denied that he was in the business of selling of milk, the same would not attract any significance. Such view of the appellate court is totally illegal inasmuch as it was for the appellate court to appreciate the fact that by not sending the report of the Public Analyst to the accused-revisionist and complying with the formalities under Section 13(2) of the Act, the valuable right of the accused would be defeated. Since the fact gets admitted by going through the judgement of the appellate court itself that report under Section 13(2) of the Act was not forwarded to the accused-revisionist, the prosecution as filed against him and the entire proceedings would be illegal. The revision be thus allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revisionist along with the judgement and order of the appellate court be set-aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the present revision but could not dispute the fact that no notice under section 13(2) of the Act has been sent to the revisionist. It was submitted that since the revisionist has denied being involved in the business of selling of milk, the sending of the report under Section 13(2) of the Act would not be of any purpose but would have been an empty formality only. The view taken by the appellate court is a just and proper view and the present revision be dismissed.
13. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusing the records of the revision and also the trial court records which are tagged with it, it transpires that the allegation against the revisionist is that he was found carrying buffalo milk in three canes on his bicycle. The Food Inspector (P.W.1) suspecting it to be adulterated, stopped him, disclosed his identity and purchased milk from the revisionist. He completed the formalities of its preservation and sampling and sent it to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst through his report opined that the same was deficient in milk fat. The material was thus considered to be adulterated and a complaint was filed. The trial proceeded in which the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and 246 Cr.P.C. The Food Inspector in his statement does not state of sending any notice to the accused-revisionist under Section 13(2) of the Act for exercising his right for getting the sample retested at the Central Food Laboratory. Compliance of 13(2) of the Act is mandatory. It preserves the valuable right of the accused to be adequately defended. By not complying with the said provision, the valuable right of the accused of being adequately defended is defeated. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that any notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused-revisionist. P.W.1, the sole witness examined in the trial has in his entire statement he nowhere states that any notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused. Even the trial court does not refer to any such notice being sent to the accused. The ground regarding the same was taken at the appellate stage but the appellate court came to the conclusion that since the accused has denied being in business of selling milk, the same would not have any justifiable effect and thus came to the conclusion that non-sending of said notice would not have any effect on the prosecution and thus dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement and order of conviction. The judgement and order of the appellate court is not sustainable in law. A right once given to the accused under statute has to be followed in full. If the same is not followed, his efficacious right of being defended gets defeated. In the present matter, the same is the situation. No notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused-revisionist for exercising his right for getting the sample of milk retested by the Central Food Laboratory. Non-compliance of the same would render his efficacious right of defence to be effectively defeated.
14. In view of the same, the present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order of the trial court and of the appellate court are hereby set aside.
15. The revisionist-Ram Swaroop is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.
16. 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.
(Samit Gopal,J.) September 9, 2025 Gaurav Kuls