SURESH ALIAS DINESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1994 passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1994 (Suresh and others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the judgement and order dated 27.1.1994, has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. By the said judgment and order dated 27.1.1994, passed in Criminal Case No.519 of 1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Suresh), the Munsif Magistrate, Kasia Deoria has held the accused-revisionist Suresh @ Dinesh guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act "1954") and has awarded one year of R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month further imprisonment and the other accused-revisionist Ganesh @ Pyare Lal has been convicted and sentenced under the said Section with six months R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month further imprisonment.

(3.) The facts in brief of the case are that on 22.12.1982, at about 1 PM Suresh @ Dinesh and Ganesh @ Pyare Lal was found carrying mustered oil for sale in Kasia within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kasia who told P.W.1 that he does work of sale while his father Ganesh @ Pyare Lal is owner of the shop. P.W.1 purchased 375 grams mustered oil from him for the purposes of sample and gave the seller, notice form no.6 and obtained his signature thereon after making him payment of Rs.6/- for the said sample and also obtained receipt thereof. The said mustered oil was filled in three dry bottles in equal quantity and after closing the same they were sealed and labels were prepared which were pasted thereon and one sample, on which full description was written was read out to the seller in presence of the witnesses. After pasting the label on all the three bottles signatures of the seller was obtained thereon and on 4th copy also signatures were obtained from the seller as well as witnesses. All the three bottles of sample, labels were pasted, whole description was written and the signature of the seller was also taken on the code. After taking all the three bottles of samples, he (P.W.1) came to the Head Quarter on 23.12.1982, and after sealing one bottle of sample along with a copy of one form-7 sent the same by registered post vide receipt no.947 dated 23.12.1982 to Public Analyst, Lucknow for the purposes of analysis and one copy of the form no.7 was separately sent in a sealed envelop vide receipt no.4055, dated 23.12.1982 to Public Analyst, Lucknow through post office and two sample of bottles after being sealed along with two copies of form no.7 were deposited in the Office of C.M.O. Deoria and one separate copy of form no.7 was also deposited in C.M.O. Office separately. Thereafter, he came to know that seller Suresh had disclosed his name as well as his father's name wrong, therefore, he inquired correct name of the seller as well as of owner after pointing out about the same and he made corrections in the letters in respect of name and parentage and informed about it on 28.12.1982 to Public Analyst, Lucknow and one copy of the same was also sent to C.M.O. Deoria. The correct name of the seller was Dinesh son of Pyare Lal Baniyan resident of Village Sakhopar, P.S. Kasia, District Deoria. The Public Analyst gave its report no.28484 dated 8.2.1983 in respect to the sample, finding it 100% oil of Alsi instead of mustered oil. The said report was received by him on 2.6.1983, under the order of C.M.O. Deoria and the same was deposited in the Office of C.M.O. Deoria by him with application dated 10.5.1983 and after having perused those documents permission was given to him for preparing challani report against the accused-revisionist which was prepared by him and a written permission was granted by C.M.O. for prosecution of the seller as well as owner of the shop in accordance with law for having committing offence under Section 2(ia)(c) read with Section 7(i) of the Act. The cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and Sri B.N. Singh, Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 and Ashok Kumar Gupta Food Clerk was examined as P.W.2. P.W.1 has clearly stated that accused had told the wrong names of the owners of the shop, therefore, he found out the correct name and had written to the Public Analyst, Lucknow and C.M.O. Deoria for correcting the names and addresses of the accused, therefore, on this ground no benefit can go the accused. He has also stated that form no.7 which is exhibit ka-8 which has not been filled fully by C.M.O. Deoria. He has further stated that he had asked the witnesses on the spot to be witness, but they were not ready and the Trial Court has held that this witness has stated nothing such on the basis of which his testimony in examination-in-chief be disbelieved. Regarding P.W.1 it is written in the judgement that he has stated that he had gone to send information to the seller Suresh @ Dinesh son of Ganesh @ Pyare Lal Baniyan, Village-Sakhopur, District Deoria vide dispatch register no.79(1) dated 18.5.1984 and to the owner Sri Ganesh @ Pyare Lal son of Lal Jee @ Ram Lal Baniya, Village Sakhopur, District Deoria about initiation of the case against them vide dispatch no.18(2). He has further stated that the public analyst report no. 28484 dated 8.2.1983 were also sent to them vide letter no.29/84-78(1), 80(2) dated 17.5.1984/18.5.1984 vide postal office receipt nos. 4573 and 4570 dated 18.5.1984 which are exhibits ka-12, 13 and 14 respectively. Therefore the Trial Court has held that this witness had sent report of the public analyst to both the accused and whatever has been asked in cross-examination from him no benefit would go to the accused thereon. He has also recorded in the judgment that all the necessary steps which were required to be taken at the time of taking samples were complied with and though, the accused have stated that entire evidence against them is false but no evidence has been adduced in their defence.