Hon'ble Shri Kant Trlpathi, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THIS revision has been preferred against the charge dated 1.7.2010 framed in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 2009 (State v. Vinay Kumar and another) by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur against the revisionists under Sections 272, 420, 467, 468, 471, 482 I.P.C. Mr. Gupta submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed material error of law in framing charge under Section 272 I.P.C. because the public analyst did not express the opinion that the sample was in any way noxious. Mr. Gupta lastly submitted that according to the report 9 of the Public Analyst, the revisionists had not disclosed the packaging date and description of the manufacturer on the pouch, therefore, he had violated Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was also submitted that the revisionists are also being prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that he does not press the instant revision against the charges framed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 482 I.P.C. and the applicants are ready to face the trial in respect of those charges. The sole question that is involved in the present revision is whether the charge under Section 272 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists from the materials on record.
(3.) THE revisionists have filed reports of the Public Analyst as Annexure No. SA-5. None of the reports speaks that the sample was in any way noxious. THE Public Analyst has merely indicated that the packaging date and address of the manufacturer were not printed on the package, therefore, it is a case of violation of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In such situations the revisionists cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 272 I.P.C. Section 272 I.P.C. provides that whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine: provided that the Court may, for adequate and sufficient reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life. In order to attract Section 272 IPC it is to be shown that the accused has adulterated the article of food or drink so as to make the article of food or drink as noxious. More so, there must be an intention on the part of the accused to sell such article of food or drink or he knows that the same is likely to be sold as food or drink. Unless these conditions exist in a given case, the question of framing the charge under Section 272 IPC does not arise. As such the facts of the instant case need to be examined keeping in view the necessary ingredients of Section 272 IPC. According to the learned counsel for the revisionists, the sample of food taken from the possession of the revisionist was not in any way noxious, therefore, the charge under Section 272 tPC was not made out. In view of the fact that the trial Court has to reconsider the matter it is not necessary to express any opinion in this regard.;