High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195221 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2169 of 2011 Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused. 3. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist- Ashok Kumar against the judgement and order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2010 dismissing the said appeal and judgement & order dated 20.01.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, Agra has been confirmed and against the judgement & order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, Agra in Case No. 2679 of 1994 whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for 03 months rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days additional imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case is that the Food Inspector R.S. Sharma went to a shop situated in Kidwai Park Gali Rangrajan, Loha Mandi, Agra and finding activity of sweet meat (petha) being prepared there and the same being displayed for sale asked for license for it which could not be produced. The revisionist is stated to be the owner of the shop. He then prepared a report about it and forwarded it to the C.M.O. concerned who granted sanction and complaint is filed. 5. In the trial P.W.-1 was examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. after which no witness was examined. The accused while giving his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. No defence evidence was led. A complaint was filed by the Nayay Surakhsha Adhikari, Agra against the revisionist for offences under Section 16/50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 before the court concerned on which cognizance was taken and the applicant was tried. 6. A complaint has been filed on a printed proforma. The charge was framed against the revisionist vide order dated 24.03.2009 by the A.C.J.M.-Ist, Agra for offences under Section / Rule 16 (50) 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The revisionist was convicted as stated above against which he preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The present revision has thus been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the complainant states that he and the supervisors went and conducted raid but despite the same only the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court. No other witness was produced and examined before the trial court. It is argued that reading of the statement of the Food Inspector recorded before the trial court under Section 246 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1 would go to show that there is no version of his as to whether any activity of preparation of sweet meat (petha) and also any display of sale of the material was at the alleged place of occurrence. The said statement only states that he reached the place of occurrence where accused Ashok Kumar along with 2 to 4 labour type persons were present there where he disclosed his identity and informed them of his intention to do an inspection and asked for a license for preparation of sweet meat (petha) and its sale but the same could not be shown to him. It is argued that the said statement does not in any manner go to show that there was any activity going on for manufacture or preparation of the said sweet meat (petha) and even whether there was any display for sale of the said material. It is argued that the prosecution case is totally false and is a concoction. It is argued that there is no breach of any rule by the revisionist. It is argued that the two persons accompanying Food Inspector have not been produced before the trial court. It is argued that as such conviction and sentence as awarded to the revisionist be set-aside, judgement & order of the trial court be set-aside and also the judgement & order of the appellate court be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments and argued that the trial court has given cogent reasons for convicting the revisionist. The appellate court has also considered the matter in its true prospective and has come to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is of manufacture of sweet meat (petha) and its display for sale without having valid license. The Food Inspector states of two supervisors accompanying him at the time of raid. The said two persons were not produced and examined before the trial court. The statement of Food Inspector as P.W.-1 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not go to show that there was any activity of preparation of sweet meat (petha) or even display of any material for sale. The only deposition by him is that he reached the place and asked for a license for preparation of sweet meat (petha) and its sale but he could not get it. The same does not in any manner show regarding any culpability. 10. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District Agra and the impugned judgement and order dated 20.01.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, Agra are hereby set aside. 11. The revisionist- Ashok Kumar 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. Order Date :- 10.10.2023 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad