Kripa Shankar @Kriparam v. State of U.P & Anr.

Heard Sri Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the records.

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist- Kripa Shankar @Kriparam with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the judgement & order dated 11.9.2018 passed by learned XVIth Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, District Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2018 (Kripa Shanker versus State of U.P.) as well as the judgement & order dated 15.5.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bareilly in Case No. 2557 of 2003 (State versus Kripa Shankar), under Section 16(i)A(i) and 16(i)A(ii) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Police Station Visharatganj, District-Bareilly and acquit the revisionist of the charges levelled against him. "

The present revision was admitted vide order dated 11.10.2018 and the revisionist was directed to be released on bail. The realization of half amount of fine was not stayed which was directed to be paid by the revisionist within two weeks from the date of his release.

The facts of the case are that on 24.10.2002 at about 12:30 p.m. Ram Pratap Food Inspector visited the shop of the revisionist and found food items being biscuit, namkeen, tea and vanaspati etc. being sold. On suspicion of Bahurani vanaspati to be adulterated he took sample of it and sent it for examination to the Food Analyst. The Food Analyst examined it and found it to be negative in baudouin examination for "til oil" and for vitamin A. The sample was thus classified as adulterated. A complaint was filed in the year 2003 against the revisionist. The Food Inspector was examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1. He produced and proved Inspection Report, Notice Form-6, purchase receipt, parcel receipt, registered post receipt to the Public Analyst, Lucknow, Memo Form-7, report of Public Analyst dated 02.12.2002, letter for sanction of C.M.O., sanction of C.M.O. as Ex. Ka-1, Ka-2, Ka- 3, Ka-4, Ka-5, Ka-6, Ka-7, Ka-8 and Ka-9 respectively. No other document was filed or proved by the prosecution in the matter.

Short argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that compliance of Section 13(2) of Food Adulteration Act has not been done in the present matter inasmuch as although in the records a report has been annexed as Ex.- 10Ka and there is a reference therein that a Registered Letter No. RL 2151, dated 23.04.2004 has been sent, but no such receipt of registry is on the record. It is submitted that no such report has been received by the revisionist under Section 13(2) of Food Adulteration Act so as to enable him to exercise his rights under the said provision. It is further submitted that even the revisional court has accepted the fact that there is no such receipt of Registered Post filed and on record to substantiate the same. It is submitted that as such right of the revisionist to get the sample re-tested before the Central Food Laboratory has been defeated and the revisionist thus could not effectively defend himself in the trial. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3436 of 2010 (Gurmail Singh vs. State of U.P. and another): Neutral Citation No.-2023:AHC:23605 and other Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.2241 of 2000 (Raj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another): Neutral Citation No.- 2019:AHC:197172, copies of the said judgements have been produced before the Court which have been perused by the Court.

Learned counsel for the State although opposed the prayer of the revision but could not dispute the said fact.

Records of the present revision and the trial court have been perused.

The facts which is undisputed is that there is no receipt of Registered Post filed, exhibited or even produced before the trial court to substantiate the sending of report under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thus fair conclusion can be drawn but no such report has been sent to the revisionist and thus his available right under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which is a mandatory provisions gets infringed. The same thus goes to show that the safeguard provided to the accused under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for exercising his valuable right of getting the sample re-tested at the Central Food Laboratory gets defeated. Extending the benefit of doubt, the revision deserves to be allowed.

The revisionist- Kripa Shankar @Kriparam is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.

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.

The file be consigned to records. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad