STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. PRADEEP AGARWAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA,J -
(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.1.2001 rendered by
Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.
121/2000, State v. Pradeep Agarwal. The learned trial court after the trial of the accused Pradeep Agarwal for the
offences under Section 272 and 273 IPC pertaining to PS
Dalanwala did not find any guilt on the part of the accused
and passed the judgment and order impugned in this
appeal. Feeling disgruntled, State has filed this appeal.
(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that on 18.5.1999 at 5 pm, Food Inspector A.K. Sharma took the sample of mixed milk
of cow and buffalo from the dairy of the accused Pradeep
Agarwal in Dehradun city after adopting the procedure as
prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
(for short, the Act). He sent the sample on 18.5.1999 itself
to the Public Analyst for the analysis of its contents. The
Public Analyst vide his report Ex. A-1 dated 2.7.1999
reported that the sample had the presence of urea which
was prohibited under Rule 44(L) of the Act. After receiving
this report from the laboratory of the Public Analyst, an FIR
was lodged at the instance of superior officers by Mr. A.K.
Sharma on 9.7.1999 at PS Dalanwala, Dehradun. The
investigation culminated into the submission of the
chargesheet Ex. A-7 dated 28.10.1999, whereupon the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on
9.3.2000. Charges were levelled for the offences under Section 272/273 IPC, as per the chargesheet submitted
against Mr. Pradeep Agarwal and the trial was proceeded.
Trial being a session one in nature was proceeded in the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has
recorded his finding that accused is not guilty and acquitted
It has been argued on behalf of the accused respondent that learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rightly acquitted the accused because the report of the
Public Analyst Ex. A-1 is silent about the percentage of the
urea so that to divulge the prohibited quantity of the
chemical in the milk. The Public Analyst has simply stated
that the presence of urea in the sample was found, but he
has not stated as to what percentage of that urea was
present in the milk.
(3.) THE attention of this Court has been drawn towards another report of the Public Analyst regarding some
other sample pertained to another accused of
Muzzafarnagar where the Public Analyst has clearly
reported the prohibited percentage of the presence of urea
in the sample of milk sent for the analysis. Besides while
this Public Analyst Dr. S.C. Tiwari, who has given this
report Ex. A-1, was examined in the court below, he has
accepted this lapse on his part while analyzing the sample
taken by the Food Inspector from Mr. Pradeep Agarwal.
PW1 Dr. S.C. Tiwari has categorically stated that he did not
write the percentage of prohibited urea in the sample of
milk, while he himself admits that urea is a necessary
ingredient of milk.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.