STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SWAMI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal which is directed against an order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused respondent by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, the Food Inspector Prakash Bajpai went to the shop of the accused-respondent on 21st Feb. . 1970, at about U A. M. This shop was situate in Mohalla Saadatganj, Police Station Cantt, district Faizabad. The Food Inspector found the accused-respondent exhibiting 'kesari dal' for sale. The Inspector wanted to take sample of the 'kesari dal' after paying rele- vant price, but the accused not only refused to give the sample but snatched the phials from the hands of the Inspector and pushed him out of the shop. Thereafter the Inspector sent his report to the Health Officer, Nagar Palika, Faisabad which is Ext. Ka-1. The Health Officer sanctioned prosecution of the accused respondent and filed a complaint id the court of the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognissance of the complaint, summoned the accused and framed charges Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, The defence of the accused was that the Food Inspector had taken sample of sweets from the shop on 6th Dec, 1969. It was found by the Public Analyst to be standard. The food Inspector had demanded some illegal gratification but he had refused to oblige him. Consequently the Food Inspector had implicated him in this way. The accused categorically denied that the Inspector had visited his shop or that he had tried to obtain sample of 'kesari dal' from his shop. The learned Magistrate on an appraisement of the evidence came to the conclusion that the Food Inspector did visit the shop of the accused, that the accused had kesari dal at his shop and that the accused had prevented the Food Inspector from taking sample. Having come to that conclusion, the Magistrate found the accused guilty Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such had sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment foe three months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-respondent went up in appeal. One of the grounds raised before the Sessions Judge was that in any case 'kesari dal' was not an article of food and it was only meant for consumption by. animals/cattle. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the entire prosecution story correct, but holding that 'kesari dal' was not an article of food but it was meant tor consumption by cattle, and relying upon a decision of this Court in Nagar Brtahapalika, Varanasi v. Pannaial ha allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. It is in this situation that the fftate has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) WE have heard learned Government counsel as well as Sri Saghir Ahj mad, learned counsel for the respondent. In our view, this appeal has to be allowed and the order of the Magistrate has to be restored. We need not mention that the State did not file an appeal against the order of the Magistrate.