AJAY SHANKAR @ JAGGU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State respondent and Shri Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Ajay Shankar @ Jaggu challenging the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.21/2012, Ajay Shankar Vs. S.N.K. Agarwal and Another by which criminal appeal filed by Ajay Shankar was dismissed and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Criminal Case No.1004/2002 State Vs. Ajay Shankar, under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was confirmed.

(3.) AS per factual matrix of the case Food Inspector S.N.K. Agrawal took a sample of the cow milk on 5.7.1999 at about 9.00am near Barel Chauraha, District -Barabanki. While, the revisionist was going to sell it. After informing the intention, 750 ml. milk was taken, price of the milk was paid to the seller at the rate of Rs.7.50 per litre, receipt was obtained. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was filled in three dry and clean bottles, appropriate formalling was added in all the samples and other formalities were completed. Inspection report was signed by the Food Inspector, on which thumb impression of the seller was also obtained. Witnesses who were called for signature on that report, declined to be a part, one sample was sent to the public analyst for analysis by special messenger and two samples were sent to Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki were deposited in the Office of C.M.O., Barabanki from the public analysis report. It was revealed that the sample was short of the prescribed standard mentioned in Rule 5 appendix -BA dated 11.1.2011 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A complaint was filed. The Food Inspector examined himself under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Food Inspector S.N.K. Agarwal was examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. P.W. 2 Shashi Bhushan Pandey Clerk of the Office of Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki was also examined. After close of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he denied that he has stated that no sample was taken and he also denied the receipt of notice and his thumb impression of the Inspection Report. However no evidence was adduced from the side of the revisionist.