HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.324/1998 Gulabdas Gupta VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prabhat Singh, P.L. for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R 17/02/2011 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 26.02.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in Criminal Appeal No.118/1996 arising out of judgment dated 17.09.1996 passed by A.C.J.M., Umariya in Criminal Case No.42/1986, 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.1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months. 2. According to prosecution case on 10.08.1985 Food Inspector Shri S.K. Mishra, along with R.V. Avrol and P.D. Khare went to village Balhaud, Police Station Manpur in the grocery shop of the applicant and after disclosing their identity to the applicant purchased 450 grams of corrigendum powder for Rs.5.40 vide receipt Ex.P-2. Thereafter he divided the sample equally in three parts and kept in three clean and orderless polythene bags in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thereafter the polythene bags were closed air tight and sealed. The Panchnama in this regard Ex.P-3 was prepared and one of the sealed polythene bag of sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhopal and copy of the seal was separately sent to Public Analyst by registered post. Shri S.K. Mishra deposited the remaining two polythene bags of samples in the office of the Local Health Authority, Shahdol and received an acknowledgment Ex.P-5. Public Analyst received the sample on 19.08.1985 and by report dated 09.09.1985 Ex.P-6 opined that the sample does not confirm to the standard prescribed for corrigendum power. A copy of the report Ex.P-6 of Public Analyst was sent to applicant by registered post and its postal receipt Ex.P-11 is proved by Shri R.S. Tamrakar, Dispatcher in the office of Local Health Authority. Shri Mishra after taking the necessary Ex.P-7 filed the complaint case on 21.01.1986 before A.C.J.M., Umaria. 3. Before the trial Court on behalf of complainant PW-1 S.K. Mishra Food Inspector, PW-2 Krishn Kumar Mishra, Public Analyst, Bhopal who conducted the test and submitted Ex.P-6 report as well as independent witnesses PW-3 Chhotelal and PW-4 R.S. Tamrakar, Dispatch Clerk of Local Health Authority, Shahdol was examined. Learned 2 trial Court relying on the evidence of PW-1 S.K. Mishra, PW-2 Krishn Kumar Misra, PW-4 R.S. Tamrakar 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 A.C.J.M. was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Mukesh Pandey has challenged the conviction of the applicant only on one count that there is no positive evidence that copy of Public Analyst report was received by the applicant and placed reliance on Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Pawan K. Saraf and others, 1999(1) F.A.C. 8 and Standard Agencies and others vs. State of M.P., 1998(1) F.A.C. 188. 5. In the case in hand PW-4 R.S. Tamrakar, Dispatch Clerk of local health authority has categorically stated that a copy of public analyst report Ex.P-6 along with the original letter Ex.P-12 was dispatched to the applicant. He has further produced Ex.P-11 postal receipt and duly entry was made in the concerned dispatch register. A copy of the register Ex.P-14 is filed. 6. On due consideration and perusal of the citations and provision of the law it is clear that the aforesaid public analyst report was sent to the applicant by registered post 3 hence there is a presumption against the applicant that he received copy. 7. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have given a cogent reason in support of their conclusion. The finding to the above fact is amply borne out from the evidence and material brought on record. There is no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of the two courts below regarding conviction of the applicant under Section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The finding of guilt is hereby affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident is 15 years old hence a lenient view should be taken against the applicant. No lenient view is required to be taken in the matter of sentence because minimum sentence of 6 months is imposed, fine amount of Rs.1000/- is already deposited before court below and no interference in fine amount is also required. 9. The revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender immediately before the trial court to undergo the remaining jail sentence. (S.C. Sinho) Judge Psm 4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.324/1998 Gulabdas Gupta VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh O R D E R Post for: 17/02/2011 (S.C.SINHO) JUDGE 5