Chunoo vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar, J.—This revision has been filed by the revisionist against order dated 22.7.1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Banda whereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.3.1986.

The revisionist was convicted and sentenced u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for being found selling adulterated buffalo milk. The public analyst found that there was deficiency of 37% fatty solid and 37% of non-fatty solid. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the accused denied that he carried on business of selling milk and also denied that any sample was taken or any milk was purchased from him.

Placing reliance upon 1986, Excise of Food Adulteration Reports, page 100, it is argued that where the accused totally denied purchase of milk, evidence of independent witnesses is necessary. In the above noted case also there was allegation of false involvement. Relying upon Section 10(7) of the Act, it was held in that case law the corroboration was necessary.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contended that the accused prayed for sending the sample for chemical analysis to Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta but the application was rejected on the ground that the expenses were not deposited. Section 13(2B) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the Court on the request of the accused, shall receive the other parts of the sample from health authority and shall dispatch one of the parts under its seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The words make it mandatory for the Court to send the sample to Central Food Laboratory if such a request is made by the accused.

There is nothing in the section that the said sample shall be sent on deposit of the expenses by the accused. No such rule was brought to my notice by the learned A.G.A. also. The application of the accused, therefore, could not be rejected on the ground that the expenses were not deposited by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has also not mentioned any section, rule or provision under which the accused was required to deposit the expenses for sending the sample for re-analysis. The fact that a prayer was made by the revisionist for re-analysis and the said application was rejected without any justified reason and ground, it is clear that the accused was denied a right which was vested in him and thus illegality was committed and, therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

The revision is allowed. The revisionist Chunnoo is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.