Devki Nandan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Devki Nandan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025

2. This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist Devki Nandan against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanshiram Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1124 of 2009 (A.K. Chaturvedi Food Inspector Vs. Devki Nandan) by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to three months further imprisonment and further against the Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2009 (Devki Nandan Vs. State and another) preferred against the said judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 of the trial court which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kasganj and the judgment and order of the trial court has been affirmed.

3. The facts of the case are that the Food Inspector A.K. Chaturvedi of area Kasganj, District Etah made an inspection of the premises of the revisionist on 31.08.1998 at about 02:45 pm at an expeller situated in village Amapur, Police Station Amapur, District Etah and found mustard oil to be stocked there in iron tumblers. He prepared an inspection report of the said deed which is Exb: Ka-3 to the records. He then purchased the alleged mustard oil from the revisionist by paying Rs. 20/- to him for 400 ml. A notice under Form-VI was prepared regarding it which was duly signed by the revisionist. At the time of signing of the said notice, the revisionist mentioned therein that the oil is for the purposes of burning. The said notice/Form-VI prepared under Rule 12 of the rules which is Exb: Ka-1 to the records. The receipt regarding the same was prepared which was also duly signed by the revisionist in which also he mentioned that the oil is only for the purposes of burning. In the said receipt itself it is mentioned that there were persons present who were not ready to be witness to the same. The said receipt is Exb: Ka-2 to the records. Later, under Form-7 was prepared for sending material to the Food Analyst for its examination. The same is Exb: Ka-4 to the records. The material was sent to the Food Analyst who vide his report dated 20.09.1998 opined that the acid value of the material is more than the prescribed limit and further the material contains argemone and rancidity and thus the same was treated to be adulterated. The report of analysis of the Food Analyst reads as under:

"??????- ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? 40 ???? ?? ?????????????????????? ?? ??????=60.0 ????????? ???=176.4 ?????? ???=104.0 ???? ????=9.67 ?????????? ??????=???? ???

?????? ??????? ????????=?????? (?????? ???? ??????)=27.0 ???? ???????????? ???????=???????????? ??????? ??? ?? ???????=??????????? ????????????? ???? ?? ???????=???????????? ?????????? ?? ???????=???????????"

4. The opinion has drawn thereafter reads as under:

"????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? 6.0 ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????????? ???"

5. The said report is Exb: Ka-6 to the records. Sanction was taken from the Local Health Authority/CMO for prosecution and notice under Section 13(2) was sent to the revisionist. The same is Exb: Ka-8 to the records. A complaint dated 23.11.1998 was filed by the Food Inspector A.K. Chaturvedi for offences under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(i)(a) of the Act and breach of Rule 50(1) which was punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.

6. The statement of the complainant Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as PW-1. Charge was framed against the revisionist vide order dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasganj, Etah for offences under Sections 7(i)(ii), 2(i)(a) of the Act and breach of Rule 50(1) of the rules punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The accused was read over the same who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 the Food Inspector was then recorded and further Hariom Kumar Kulshrestha the clerk in the office of CMO, Etah was examined as PW-2 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. Mek Singh the Sanitary Supervisor in the office of CMO, Etah was examined as PW-3. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version. He stated that the remains of worst product which remained is left, is used for burning purposes and for use on the body of animals which was taken by the Food Inspector. Chetan Kumar Gupta was produced as defence witness and was examined as DW-1 before the trial court.

8. The trial court being convinced and satisfied by the evidence led by the prosecution then convicted and sentenced the revisionist as above. Against the said judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 an appeal was preferred by the revisionist which also stood dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial court was affirmed. Thus the present revision has been brought before this Court against two aforesaid judgments and orders which stand against the revisionist.

9. The Food Inspector Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi under his statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. proved the documents from Exb:-Ka-1 to Exb:-Ka-11. While being examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. he states that he was authorized by the CMO for taking samples within the whole of the District of Etah. He while exercising his powers and being authorized as such took the sample of the said mustard oil. He states that at the time of collecting the sample, Mek Singh and Dr. S.K. Singh the CMO were present. The license was asked for from the revisionist for operating the expeller which could not be produced by him. He also could not get any license in the department issued for the said expeller. He then proceeds to prove notice in Form-VI. He states that in Form-VI, the accused has written before signing that the oil is for the purposes of burning. The said note has been made by the accused in Exb: Ka-1 and Ka-2 both. He states then normally and generally mustard oil is not use for burning. He then proceeds to prove the documents and states of the report of the Public Analyst till his filing of the complainant before the court concerned.

10. PW-2 Hariom Kumar Kulshreshtha was the then clerk in the office of CMO concerned. He states that notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was sent to the accused on the basis of a written report given by the Food Inspector along with a report of the Public Analyst which was duly signed by the CMO/Local Health Authority, he proves the same. He further proves the receipt of the registered post of the postal department bearing No. 3896 dated 10.12.1998 as Exb: Ka-13. He states that the registered post was sent at the address of the accused which did not return back and thus was served on him.

11. Mek Singh PW-3 states that in Exb: Ka-2 and Ka-3 he has made his signature which were done by him at the expeller of the accused. The mustard oil was purchased and a receipt was given which is seen by him and he identifies it. He then states of his signature on the three samples made of the material purchased.

12. DW-1 Chetan Kumar Gupta was produced by the accused in defence. He states that Devki Nandan is a labour at the expeller and he works on the machine. He does not sell the products. He states that the material which was taken by the Food Inspector from Devki Nandan was the extract from the waste product, the same was to be used on the body of animals, their horns and was for the purpose of burning also. He states that the oil which expells out of the expeller and falls on the ground, is collected and is the waste material which is used as such. He states that the Food Inspector was told by Devki Nandan that the said material is used for burning. He states that Devki Nandan does not sell any such products.

13. The trial court after considering the evidence in full being the oral and documentary evidence came to its conclusion that the allegation against the accused-revisionist that he was selling mustard oil without a license after collecting it and using an expeller without a license, is proved. The trial court in so far as DW-1 is concerned in its finding as observed that from his statement it transpires that mustard oil of which sample was taken, was for the purposes of burning and to be used on the horns of animals but no evidence was led with regards to the fact of license it, and thus convicted and sentenced the revisionist accused as above. An appeal against the said judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 of conviction, stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 of the appellate court.

14. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsels for the State and perused the records and also perused the trial court records which are tagged with the present file.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in so far as the factum of the material not being displayed for sale is concerned, there is nothing credible to demonstrate that the said material was displayed for sale. It is further submitted that at the time of collection of the sample, the revisionist had specifically noted in Form-VI and also in the receipt that the said material is for burning and thus the fact that the same was not for human consumption, stands unrebutted. It is submitted that in so far as the storage of the material is concerned, the same was waste product which in the normal course of use of expeller, is found and thus the same is not in use for human consumption but is used for other purposes. It is submitted further that the revisionist was a worker and a labour at the said expeller which was stated by him and even evidence was adduced by DW-1 for it which could not be rebutted by the prosecution. It is submitted that in so far as the attraction of Rule 50(1) of the Rules, 1955 are concerned, the same would only attract if the material is a food item which is proposed to be used for human consumption and not otherwise. It is submitted that the testimony of DW-1 has not been disputed by the trial court and further reading of his testimony also goes to show that he is a trustworthy witness who has apart from the other facts mentioned and accepted by the trial court also and stated that the revisionist was a labourer working in the said expeller. It is submitted that looking to the said shortcomings of the prosecution case, the present revision is a fit case which deserves to be allowed and the revisionist deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him and the judgments and orders impugned herein deserve to be set aside.

16. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present revision, the arguments and the prayer in the present revision and submitted that in so far as the collected material is concerned, the report of the Public Analyst goes to show that it is adulterated. It is submitted that there is no challenge to the said report by the revisionist. It is submitted further that even the fact that expeller was being used without a license, is also not disputed. It is submitted that the fact that the material was collected from the said point, is also not disputed and the same even cannot be disputed looking to the Form-VI as mentioned that the said material is for burning which would go to show that the material has been collected from the place, time and person which has been proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that the trial court has after detailed analysis come to the conclusion that the material was adulterated and there was no license for working of the expeller and thus the revisionist was found to be guilty for offence under Section 7(i)(ii), (1)(A) of the PFA Act and Rule 50(1) of the Rules, 1955 and thus convicted and sentenced him under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act against which an appeal was also stood dismissed. It is submitted that the present revision is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

17. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the facts undisputed and unchallenged at this stage are that the material was taken at the time, date and place as mentioned in Form-VI, inspection report and in the receipt, the same was found to be adulterated as per the Public Analyst report. Procedures were followed and complaint was followed subsequent to which the trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionist as above against which an appeal was also filed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

18. The fact thus remains that the revisionist at the time of drawing of the sample and its purchase in Form-VI and the receipt has specifically mentioned that the material is for burning purposes. The Food Inspector PW-1 also states of the same noting done by the revisionist. Mek Singh PW-3 also states of the said noting to be done by the revisionist at the relevant time. The fact thus remains that the material as collected was not for human consumption but was for burning purpose. Further, a defence was taken up by the revisionist regarding the same for which even he produced DW-1 who states that the revisionist was working at the said expeller as a labourer and further that the revisionist does not sell any material, the same was for burning purposes only.

19. The trial court although referred to the statement of DW-1 and did not dispute his testimony with regard to the fact that the material collected was for the purposes of burning only but remains silent in so far as it related to the fact that the revisionist was working as a labourer in the said expeller and was not selling the said material. The trial court and even the appellate court do not discard the testimony of DW-1 which would be unfair and even unjust to not discard the testimony of a witness and accept major portion of it but remain silent with regard to his other version. The fact thus remains that the material collected, was for burning purposes only and not for human consumption. Further, the testimony of DW-1 without any embellishment in his cross examination shows that the revisionist was working as a labourer at the said expeller and did not use to sell the oil. The provisions thus charged do not get attracted.

20. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the view that the present revision deserves to be allowed. Consequently this revision is allowed.

21. The judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanshiram Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1124 of 2009 and the judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kasganj of the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

22. The revisionist-Devki Nandan is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

23. The trial court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 M. ARIF

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court