Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Chandra Pal on 10 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No.58 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2018 of 1986 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Chandra Pal Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Pachauri ********* Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
This government appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal of respondent who has been acquitted from the charge vide order dated 15.01.1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.
Facts, in brief, are that Shri R.C. Gupta, Food Inspector found the accused Chandrapal selling milk on 17.01.1982 at 10.30 a.m. at Raya Nahar, Mathura. It was a mixed milk of cow and buffaloes. Food Inspector took the sample for the purpose of analysis by purchasing 660 ml. milk for Rs.1.50 and prepared notice Ext.Ka-1, receipt Ext.Ka-2, inspection memorandum Ext.Ka-3. He took the sample according to rules, sealed it on the spot and divided in three equal parts. The signatures of the accused appellant was obtained on the documents prepared at the spot and the label affixed on the sample bottles itself. The Food Inspector added necessary quantity of fermaline as preservative. Thereafter he sent one of the samples vide memorandum Ext. Ka-4 to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for examination and analysis. The Public Analyst vide its report found the milk to be adulterated in as much the sample of milk was found deficient by 42% fatty solids and 53% in non-fatty solids. After receipt of the Public Analyst report the Food Inspector reported it to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura for obtaining his sanction for prosecution of the accused appellant. Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused. The sanction is Ex.Ka-6 and subsequently Food Inspector filed complaint Ex.Ka-8 in the court having jurisdiction.
Perusal of the record reveals that the accused appellant denied having sold the milk and stated that he was employee of Pratap Singh the other accused who was said to be the owner of the milk and now acquitted by the trial court. Further the accused pleaded that he did not receive the copy of the Public Analyst Report as mandatorily required under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, '1954 Act') so he was deprived of his valuable right conferred under Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act. Further the accused has stated that he did not sell the milk but was taking it to some other man, namely, Rajendra Singh in connection with Dasthaun ceremony of his son.
The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Shri R.C. Gupta, Food Inspector as P.W.1 and Shri Bajnath, vaccinator as P.W.2 whereas the defence has examined accused Chandrapal himself as D.W.1, Pratap Singh D.W.2 and Rajendra Singh as D.W.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 7.12.1984 convicted the accused under Section 7/16 of 1954 Act and granted benefit of doubt to other co-accused Pratap Singh. The trial court sentenced the accused Chandra Pal to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, appeal was preferred in the court of Sessions Judge, Mathura who after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused applicant vide judgment and order dated 15.1.1986. Aggrieved against the said order this Government Appeal has been preferred.
Learned A.G.A. for the appellant states that the impugned judgment and order is against the weight of evidence. It is next contended that provisions of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act has given a right to accused to get sample re-examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta within ten days from the date of receipt of the Public Analyst report and this time of 10 days is uncondonable. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse. It is next contended that Sanitary Inspector posted in the district have been invested power for the whole district where he is posted. It is lastly contended that compliance under Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act was proved by P.W.2, inspite of this, order of acquittal has been recorded.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is cogent and reasonable as the provisions of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act has not been complied with; independent witness had not been produced and lastly all the papers which were required to be prepared at the spot had been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. It is next contended that it is an established legal proposition that in an appeal against the order of acquittal the reappraisement of the evidence and conclusion drawn by the court can only be permissible if the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence and if two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal should not be reversed. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well reasoned and does not require any interference by this Court.
I have considered the arguments raised by both the parties and have also gone through the lower court records. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Appellate Court after appraisal of the evidence was of the opinion that the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory was found to be decomposed. Further there was non compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act as no copy of the Public Analyst report was sent within stipulated period to the accused and further the Appellate Court found that specific plea was taken by the accused that he had not received the copy of Public Analyst report and the milk was not for the purpose of sale and also found that the necessary documents which were mandatorily required to be prepared on the spot had not been prepared as it is evident that on two documents the signature to independent witness P.W.2 is missing. The learned Appellate Court has specifically and categorically gave the finding that the signatures of P.W.2 were not found on the notices and inspection memorandums along with the sample given by the Food Inspector which was sent to Public Analyst. This makes the presence of P.W.2 on the spot highly doubtful and due to the aforesaid reasons the learned Appellate Court had given benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. I am in full agreement with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent accused as in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 SC 589, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is open to the High Court to re-appraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial Court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial Court is stated to be perverse. The word 'perverse' means "against the weight of evidence".
Further in T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (1) SCC 401 it has been held that If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On the anvil of the touchstone of above said legal propositions perusal of the impugned judgment along with its reason shows that neither there is any infirmity nor perversity or illegality in recording the order of acquittal against the accused.
Further to add that in case of appeal against acquittal generally the court interferes in those cases :-
(i) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (ii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; (iii) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the Accused;
(iv) Lastly where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussions as I have already observed that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is based on appreciation of evidence tendered by the prosecution and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions as contained in Food Adulteration Act, especially non-compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act. It is relevant to mention that the second and third sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta to be invited for analysis had already found to be decomposed. The order of acquittal has been recorded in the year 1986 and this appeal is that of 1986.
Keeping all the facts and circumstances as stated above and the legal proposition as above mentioned, the order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity hence does not require any interference.
Accordingly, this government appeal is hereby dismissed.
Let a certified copy of the judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.
Order Date :- 10.01.2018 Anand/-