- (1.) THIS revision petition is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 4.9.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Case -cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh affirming the judgment and order dated 20.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954' hereinafter) and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 27.5.1987 at about 7.00 a.m. a sample of curd was taken from a pot available with the petitioner by the then Food Inspector Shri Brij Mohan. The sample so taken was sent for its examination to Public Analyst. The Public Analyst in his report dated 2.8.1988 found the sample of curd adulterated with undefined nature. A complaint, thus, was filed before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. During the course of trial, the court recorded the prosecution evidence and provided opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances adverse to him in prosecution evidence. After considering the entire material available, the trial court held the petitioner guilty for commission of an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and sentenced him accordingly. The conviction was affirmed by the appellate court and sentence awarded too was maintained. In the revision petition submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution case was of having adulteration in curd due to non-availability of solid non-fats whereas no such finding is given by the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst is available on record as Exhibit-P/9. The Public Analyst opined that the curd was containing 5% milk fat and 6.2% milk solids. No cane sugar and starch was present. The presence of formalin was noticed. Suffice to mention here that formalin was added by the Food Inspector at the time of availing sample. As per the opinion of the Public Analyst, the curd was having undefined nature adulteration. No finding is given by the public analyst that the curd was not having solid non-fats. As a matter of fact, a definite finding is given that the milk solid non-fats were available to the extent of 6.2%. It is not a case of prosecution that milk solid non-fats were less with the required quantity but of total absence of solid non-fats. The courts below, thus, has not taken care to examine the Public Analyst Report (Ex.P/9) and as such, the material illegality is apparent.
(3.) THE revision petition, thus, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh and judgment and order dated 4.9.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Case -cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh are hereby quashed. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The bail bonds and sureties furnished by the petitioner stands discharged.;