State of U.P v. Vishnu Rothor) whereby the

5. The facts of the case are that on 03.11.2010 at about 11:30 a.m. near the bridge on the river at police station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, the Food Inspector Arvind Kumar found the revisionist carrying around 10 Kg. of Khoya and selling it, the same was inspected. On inquiry, he stated that the same is for sale. A license was asked for which could not be shown. On a suspicion of said Khoya being adulterated, he purchased 750 gram from him by making a requisite payment, he then as per the procedure made three samples of it. The same was sent to the public analyst for analysis, who vide his report No. 13474 dated 14.12.1010 opined that the milk fat content is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 30% for Khoya. The further opinion is that the sample is adulterated. The sample was found to contain milk fat which was

26.85%. Sanction was obtained from C.M.O. concerned and a complaint dated 18.01.2011 was filed before the Court concerned by Arvind Kumar, the Food Inspector against the revisionist.

6. Vide order dated 23.09.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah charge was framed against the revisionist for offences under Sections 7(i)/16(1)A(i), 7(iii)/16(1)A(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

7. The trial in the matter started in which two witnesses, namely, Arvind Kumar, Food Inspector / complainant was examined as P.W.-1 and Rajni Rawat, Food Clerk was examined as P.W-2. No other prosecution witness was examined.

8. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. No defence witness was examined. The trial court came to conclusion that the prosecution case is beyond reasonable doubt and trustworthy and thus convicted and sentenced the accused-revisionist as stated above.

9. An appeal against the said revision was preferred which was allowed in part and the conviction of the revisionist was altered as above. The present revision thus has been filed challenging both the judgement and orders.

10. The complainant Arvind Kumar, P.W.-1 in his statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. had supported the prosecution case, subsequently, in his statement under Section 246 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1, he stated of taking the sample but further stated that he did not see the accused Vishnu Rathor selling Khoya. He states that no signature of the accused was on Ex-K-2 and Form-6. He further states that he cannot say whether the Ram Autar does the work of Khoya or not.

11. P.W.-2 Rajni Rawat, the Food Clerk has proved the postal receipt regarding notice being sent to the accused.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the Khoya was found to be deficient in milk fat marginally as per the report of public annalist which is Ex-Ka-6 to the records but there is nothing on record to show that the same was containing any external substance and was unfit for human consumption. It is further submitted that insofar as, the complainant is concerned, he during trial states that he did not see the revisionist selling Khoya. It is submitted that there is no public witness to support the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no signature of the accused on Form-6 and thus the taking of the sample from his possession is in doubt and is seriously disputed. It is submitted that as such looking to the facts of the case, the present revision be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revisionist be set aside.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and the present revision vehemently and submitted that it was stated by the complainant that he did not find customer of Khoya which is a natural conduct inasmuch as, it may be possible that when he reached the revisionist, there was no customer present to purchase the material therein. It is submitted that it cannot be said that since the revisionist was not found to be selling Khoya, the same was not displayed for sale. It is further submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and thus the present revision be dismissed.

14. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records of the present revision and also trial court records, it is apparent that the Food Inspector Arvind Kumar is stated to have collected Khoya from the possession of the revisionist which was sent to the public analyst and was found to be deficient in fat content Khoya and thus it was stated to be adulterated. Form-6 regarding the receipt for purchase of the material does not contain the signature of the accused. The Food Inspector in his statement in the trial states that he did not find the accused selling Khoya. There is no public witness to the said transaction. Since the Food Inspector categorically states that he did not find the revisionist selling Khoya, the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist appears to be having some force and substance. The revisionist thus deserves to be extended benefit of doubt in the present matter.

15. In view of the same, it is a fit case for extending the benefit of doubt to the revisionist.

16. The revision is thus allowed by extending the benefit of doubt to the revisionist. The impugned judgement and order dated

13.03.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah and judgement and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

17. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

18. A copy of this judgement along with the trial court records be sent to the trial court forthwith for communication and necessary action. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

5. The facts of the case are that on 03.11.2010 at about 11:30 a.m. near the bridge on the river at police station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, the Food Inspector Arvind Kumar found the revisionist carrying around 10 Kg. of Khoya and selling it, the same was inspected. On inquiry, he stated that the same is for sale. A license was asked for which could not be shown. On a suspicion of said Khoya being adulterated, he purchased 750 gram from him by making a requisite payment, he then as per the procedure made three samples of it. The same was sent to the public analyst for analysis, who vide his report No. 13474 dated 14.12.1010 opined that the milk fat content is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 30% for Khoya. The further opinion is that the sample is adulterated. The sample was found to contain milk fat which was

26.85%. Sanction was obtained from C.M.O. concerned and a complaint dated 18.01.2011 was filed before the Court concerned by Arvind Kumar, the Food Inspector against the revisionist.

6. Vide order dated 23.09.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah charge was framed against the revisionist for offences under Sections 7(i)/16(1)A(i), 7(iii)/16(1)A(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

7. The trial in the matter started in which two witnesses, namely, Arvind Kumar, Food Inspector / complainant was examined as P.W.-1 and Rajni Rawat, Food Clerk was examined as P.W-2. No other prosecution witness was examined.

8. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. No defence witness was examined. The trial court came to conclusion that the prosecution case is beyond reasonable doubt and trustworthy and thus convicted and sentenced the accused-revisionist as stated above.

9. An appeal against the said revision was preferred which was allowed in part and the conviction of the revisionist was altered as above. The present revision thus has been filed challenging both the judgement and orders.

10. The complainant Arvind Kumar, P.W.-1 in his statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. had supported the prosecution case, subsequently, in his statement under Section 246 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1, he stated of taking the sample but further stated that he did not see the accused Vishnu Rathor selling Khoya. He states that no signature of the accused was on Ex-K-2 and Form-6. He further states that he cannot say whether the Ram Autar does the work of Khoya or not.

11. P.W.-2 Rajni Rawat, the Food Clerk has proved the postal receipt regarding notice being sent to the accused.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the Khoya was found to be deficient in milk fat marginally as per the report of public annalist which is Ex-Ka-6 to the records but there is nothing on record to show that the same was containing any external substance and was unfit for human consumption. It is further submitted that insofar as, the complainant is concerned, he during trial states that he did not see the revisionist selling Khoya. It is submitted that there is no public witness to support the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no signature of the accused on Form-6 and thus the taking of the sample from his possession is in doubt and is seriously disputed. It is submitted that as such looking to the facts of the case, the present revision be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revisionist be set aside.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and the present revision vehemently and submitted that it was stated by the complainant that he did not find customer of Khoya which is a natural conduct inasmuch as, it may be possible that when he reached the revisionist, there was no customer present to purchase the material therein. It is submitted that it cannot be said that since the revisionist was not found to be selling Khoya, the same was not displayed for sale. It is further submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and thus the present revision be dismissed.

14. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records of the present revision and also trial court records, it is apparent that the Food Inspector Arvind Kumar is stated to have collected Khoya from the possession of the revisionist which was sent to the public analyst and was found to be deficient in fat content Khoya and thus it was stated to be adulterated. Form-6 regarding the receipt for purchase of the material does not contain the signature of the accused. The Food Inspector in his statement in the trial states that he did not find the accused selling Khoya. There is no public witness to the said transaction. Since the Food Inspector categorically states that he did not find the revisionist selling Khoya, the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist appears to be having some force and substance. The revisionist thus deserves to be extended benefit of doubt in the present matter.

15. In view of the same, it is a fit case for extending the benefit of doubt to the revisionist.

16. The revision is thus allowed by extending the benefit of doubt to the revisionist. The impugned judgement and order dated

13.03.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah and judgement and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

17. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

18. A copy of this judgement along with the trial court records be sent to the trial court forthwith for communication and necessary action. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad