VIJAI SHANKER SHUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist Mahesh Chandra assisted by Ratnesh Chandra and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) BY means of this criminal revision, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the revisionist has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2000 (Vijai Shanker Shukla Vs. State) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 01.03.2000 passed by learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in Criminal Case No.3279 of 1998 (State Vs. Vijai Shanker Shukla), under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (In short 'PFA Act'), Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli whereby the accused revisionist was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment.

(3.) BRIEF facts for deciding this criminal revision are that on 17.06.1998 at about 3:45 PM in Village Purepandey, Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli revisionist Vijay Shanker Shukla was found sitting on his grocery store where he was selling Namkin. Suspecting about the quality of Namkin, the Food Inspector Mohd. Rafiq purchased three packets of Namkin having weight of 200 gms each for Rs.24 and divided the same in three parts in three polythene packets and sent for public analyst as per rules for ascertaining the quality. The Public Analyst after examination found that Namkin contains Lathyrus sativus commonly known as 'Khesari', which is prohibited as an item of food. After completing the formalities, the prosecution was launched against the revisionist. The Food Inspector examined himself as PW 1 and proved all the necessary documents which was prepared by him on the spot as well as prepared thereafter. The Food Clerk Sunil Kumar was examined as PW 2 to prove the documents pertaining to sanction for prosecution and dispatch of public analyst's report to the accused/revisionist. Thereafter the revisionist was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he has no shop. In defence Kripa Shanker was examined as DW 1. He deposed that Vijay Shanker Shukla is the resident of his village. He has 10 Bighas' of agricultural land. He is doing agriculture from the very beginning. He has no other source of income either from any business or from service. He has neither provisional store nor grocery shop in Purepandey or in the village. It is in his personal knowledge. He denied that any sample of Namkin has been taken by the Food Inspector from Vijay Shanker Shukla because he has no shop.