Tauqeerul Islam vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Tauqeerul Islam vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2025

2. Heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the records. The trial court records have also been received which have also been perused.

3. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist Tauqeerul Islam with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the record, allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C/S.T.) Act Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2011, Tauqeerul Islam Versus State of U.P., and judgment and order dated 23.6.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur in complaint case no. 456 of 2006, State Versus Tauqeerul Islam, under section 7/16 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, Police Station Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur and acquit the revisionist.

It is further prayed that the revisionist may be released on bail during pendency of revision before this Hon'ble Court in complaint case no. 456 of 2006 State Versus Tauqeerul Islam, under section 7/16 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 Police Station Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur during pendency of above noted revision before this Hon'ble Court.

And/or pass such other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

4. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.6.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur in complaint case no. 456 of 2006, State Versus Tauqeerul Islam, Police Station Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 7/16 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause; and further against the judgement and order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C/S.T.) Act Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2011, Tauqeerul Islam Versus State of U.P., by which the said appeal has been dismissed and the judgement and order of the trial court has been affirmed.

5. The facts of the case are that on 13.12.1986 at about 12:00 p.m. at the crossing of Kalpi, Hamirpur at the shop of the revisionist wherein he was selling food items, besan, flour etc. the Food Inspector Matadeen made a search and found besan to be displayed for sale. On suspecting it to be adulterated he purchased 750gms besan of it by paying him the amount of Rs. 15/-. The said besan was then packed in 03 different packets and one of them was sent to the Food Analyst for its examination. The Food Analyst, Lucknow vide his report no.12619 dated 08.10.1999 opined that the said sample contains 'khesari daal aata' which is a prohibited item. Since besan was found to be adulterated the proceedings were initiated and appropriate sanction of the C.M.O. concerned was taken and then a complaint dated 21.02.2000 was filed against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 7(i)(v) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(b)(c) and 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and breach of Rule 44A which is punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Act. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused. The postal receipt thereof has been proved as Ex. Ka-13 by P.W.-2/Rajesh Kumar. Vide order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur charge against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 7(i)(v) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(b)(c) of the Act and violation of Rule 44A which was punishable under Section 16 of the Act was framed. The statement of Food Inspector was recorded as P.W.-1 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Subsequently Food Inspector/Matadeen was examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C., Rajesh Kumar Katiyar(Junior Clerk) was examined as P.W.-2 and Naresh Kumar (Food Inspector Ghaziabad) was examined as P.W.-3. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and stated of false case being initiated against him. The trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionist as above. An appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgement and order of conviction stood dismissed by the appellate court. The present revision is thus filed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised single argument before the Court that although P.W.-2/Rajesh Kumar Katiyar states of sending the Food Analyst report and the other documents under Sections 13(2) of the Act to the revisionist through Registered Post but there is nothing on the record to show that the same has been received by the revisionist. He states that since no document was received by the revisionist his valuable rights to get the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory is defeated. The fact that the report under Section 13(2) of the Act has been received by the revisionist is denied and is seriously challenged. It is submitted that even the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the fact that the report under Section 13(2) of the Act has been received by the revisionist. To buttress the said submissions learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court reported in Vijendra versus State of Uttar Pradesh: 2020(15)SCC 763 and the judgement of this Court in the case of Ramkishun versus State of U.P.: Neutral Citation No.2023AHC:232548 and while placing para-15 of the judgement of the Apex Court and para-7 of the this Court has submitted that it has been held that failure on the part of the prosecution to show that the said report has been received at the end of the accused/revisionist would render the prosecution unsuccessful since the valuable right of the accused to exercise his rights gets defeated. It is submitted that as such the revision be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist but could not dispute the above arguments.

8. P.W.-1/Food Inspector in his testimony before the trial court states that the report of the Food Analyst and other documents were sent to the accused. He does not further dilate on the said issue. P.W.-2/Rajesh Kumar Katiyar (Food Clerk) also states of sending of the said documents to the accused/revisionist through registered post and receipt of the same is marked as Ex. Ka-14 to the records. He further also does not dilate on the said issue. The testimony of P.W.-3/Naresh Kumar (Food Inspector Ghaziabad) does not states of any such act since he was a witness for different purpose. Thus the fact remains that in so far as the duty of the prosecution in proving the receipt of the said report by the accused/revisionist is concerned, has not been stated and proved by it and the prosecution is silent. Even the trial court and the appellate court have not stated that the said report has been received by the accused/revisionist and the said fact has been proved by the prosecution.

9. In view of the same and considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra(supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramkishun (supra), this Court comes to the conclusion that the revisionist deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt and the revision deserves to be allowed.

10. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C/S.T.) Act Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2011, Tauqeerul Islam Versus State of U.P., and judgment and order dated 23.6.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur in complaint case no. 456 of 2006, State Versus Tauqeerul Islam, under section 7/16 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, Police Station Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur are hereby set aside.

11. The revisionist- Tauqeerul Islam is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.

12. 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.

13. The file be consigned to records.

(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Naresh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court