HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.1412/1998 Hari Prasad VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prabhat Singh, P.L. for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R 18/02/2011 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Appeal No.11/1996 arising out of judgment dated 27.12.1995 passed by J.M.F.C., Harda in Criminal Case No.446/1986, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months. 2. According to prosecution case on 24.09.1986 applicant was selling groundnut oil and other items from his grocery shop located at village Pokharni, P.S. Timarni. Shri C.P. Tiwari (PW-1) Food Inspector after disclosing his identity to the applicant purchased 375 ml groundnut oil vide receipt Ex.P-6 for Rs.24/-. Thereafter he divided the sample equally in three parts and kept in three dried and clean bottles in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thereafter the bottles were closed, air tight and sealed. The Panchnama in this regard Ex.P-7 was prepared and one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and copy of the seal was separately sent to Public Analyst by registered post. The remaining two bottles of sample were deposited in the office of the Local Health Authority. Public Analyst report is Ex.P-13 by which it has been opined that the sample does not confirm to the standard prescribed for groundnut oil. A copy of the report Ex.P-13 of Public Analyst was sent to applicant by registered post and its postal receipt Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17. Shri Tiwari (PW-1) after taking necessary sanction vide Ex.P-15 filed the complaint case before J.M.F.C. Harda. 3. Before the trial Court on behalf of prosecution only PW-1 C.P. Tiwari and PW-2 Ranchhor were examined. However, on behalf of applicant no defence witness was examined. Learned trial Court relying on the evidence of PW-1 C.P. Tiwari held that all the requisite steps of procedure were followed and the sample was found adulterated and eventually convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment of conviction passed by J.M.F.C. was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the conviction of the applicant on two counts firstly the sample was not a requisite sample as required under Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because it was not made homogeneous by stirring and secondly a copy of the public analyst report Ex.P-13 was not sent to him. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant and justified the finding of conviction arrived at by the courts below. 6. In the case in hand PW-3 M.L. Bhamore, Clerk of local health authority has categorically stated that a copy of public analyst report Ex.P-13 was dispatched to the applicant. He has further produced Ex.P-17 postal receipt. 7. On due consideration and perusal of the provisions of the law it is clear that the aforesaid public analyst report was sent to the applicant by registered post hence there is a presumption against the applicant that he received copy. 8. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that before the trial Court complainant/Food Inspector only appeared as a witness in support of the prosecution case. Food Inspector Shri Tiwari has not deposed that any stirring was done by him before obtaining sample of groundnut oil so as to make it homogeneous. This fact is also not mentioned by him in his panchnama Ex.P-7 prepared on the spot. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed 3 reliance on Dharamchand v. Food Inspector, 1985 F.A.J. 455 M.P. and Satyendra Gupta vs. Mohanlal 2007(III) MPWN 11 where it is held that if the collected sample was not representative sample then applicant is entitled for acquittal. Thus, both the courts below have committed a mistake while convicting the applicant because the sample taken from the oil stored for sale in the shop of the applicant without stirring and making it homogeneous was not representative sample and it was clear violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 9. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.11.1998 is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the charge under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. (S.C. Sinho) Judge psm 4