ANURAG KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by State against judgment and order dated 04.04.2001 passed by Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in S.T. No. 207 of 1998, under Sections 272 and 284 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Sitapur acquitting the accused/respondent Anil Kumar Rathore.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dhananjay Kumar Santoshi wrote a letter to Director Medical Health stating that he has purchased two tin Mustard oil from Anil Kumar Rathore in the 2nd week of June. From the use of that mustard oil, his entire family got serious ailment. He has to admit his mother Smt. Sarla Devi on 02.08.1994 in District Hispital Sitapur and on 02.09.1994 his sister Upasana Saxena to P.G.I. Lucknow. His younger brother Angdhwaj Santoshi also got dysentery and diarrhea due to use of that oil. On 06.09.1994, he came to know that due to use of this oil his mother, sister and brother fell seriously ill. No action by District Health Officer and C.M.O. was taken and after several complaints on 12.10.1994, Food Inspector took the sample of pure mustered oil and not that mustard oil due to use of which all the persons got serious ailment. On this application, an F.I.R. was registered against respondent Anil Kumar Rathore under Sections 272 and 284 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused Anil Kumar Rathore under Sections 272 and 284 I.P.C. and 7/14 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was committed to Sessions Court and Ninth Additional Sessions Judge on 21.01.1994 framed charges against the respondent Anil Kumar Rathore under Sections 272 and 284 I.P.C. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Rakesh Kumar. No other witness was examined by prosecution inspite of several opportunities. Formal proof of prosecution papers were admitted by accused and typed application was marked as Ext. Ka-1, F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-2, Copy of G.D. as Ext. Ka-3, site plan as Ext. K-4 and charge sheet as Ext. Ka-5. The learned trial judge Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur passed impugned judgment dated 04.04.2001 acquitting the accused respondent Anil Kumar Rathore of the charges under Sections 272 and 284 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, State preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the judgment of the trial court is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment was based on wrong interpretation of the evidence available on record. The prosecution evidence produced by prosecution in the trial court is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Even after service of summon, the trial court court did not provide proper opportunity to prosecution to examine those witnesses and thus committed grave illegality. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the trial court's judgment is liable to be set aside.
(3.) HEARD learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tripathi for respondent accused Anil Kumar Rathore.;