IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 88 of 2005 1. Phool Singh, S/o Shri Bala R/o Village Majhol, Police Station-Jhabrera, District Saharanpur. ………. Revisionist/ Applicant. Versus 1. State of U.P.(Now state of Uttarakhand) .…….Respondent. Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A. alongwith Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.1988, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in criminal appeal No. 66 of 1983, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court [Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Roorkee] under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the 2 revisionist Phool Singh, in criminal case No. 386 of 1982. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Lower court record of the case could not be traced out even after the best efforts, after this revision is received by this Court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000) for its disposal, from Allahabad High Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that P.W.1 Tej Pal Singh, Food Inspector, on 29.12.1980, at about 8:00 a.m. near DB Bend, Asifnagar, found the revisionist Phool Singh, taking buffalo milk for sale, in four canes. He purchased sample milk in quantity of 660m.lt. for a price of Rs. 1.20P in the presence of witness P.W. 2 Krishan Kumar, after serving notice in form VI on the revisionist. After the purchase, the sample was divided in three parts and filled in three clean vials. Eighteen drops of the preservative formalin was poured in each vial before the same were sealed and labelled. A receipt in (Exh.-2) was given to the revisionist. His signatures were obtained in the label affixed 3 in the samples. Thereafter one sample alongwith letter in form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow, for analysis. The other two samples were deposited with the Chief Medical Officer. The report dated 11.12.1981, was received from Public Analyst in respect of the sample sent and it was reported that the buffalo milk which was sent for the analysis was found containing fatty solids to the extent of 5.1% and non-fatty solids to the extent of 7.4% which was approximately 15% less to the minimum standard prescribed in the rules. P.W.1 Tej Pal Singh, after obtaining required sanction from Local Health Authority, submitted criminal complaint against the revisionist before the Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Roorkee (now part of District Haridwar, Uttarakhand) on 13.05.1981, for his prosecution under section 7/16 for Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short PFA).The Magistrate summoned the accused, recorded the statement of P.W.1 Tej Pal Singh under section 244 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, a charge was framed against the accused under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got further 4 examined P.W.1 Tej Pal Singh, Food Inspector, under section 246 of Cr.P.C. Also P.W.2 Krishna Kumar and P.W.3 Shyam Lal Kaushik, were examined. P.W.2 Krishna Kumar was witness of taking of sample, and P.W.3 Shyam Lal Kaushik proved the sanction granted by the Local Health Authority. The evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., relating to which he alleged to be false. In defence agreement was produced. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties found accused Phool Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After hearing on sentence the trial court sentenced to the convict to six months rigorous imprisonment and also directed him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which the convict was directed to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 03.02.1983, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence,Roorkee, in criminal case No. 386 of 1982 State vs. Phool Singh, criminal appeal No. 66 of 1983 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, which was transferred and disposed of vide impugned judgment and 5 order dated 05.01.1988, by First Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence this revision was filed before Allahabad High Court on 17.02.1988. I have already mentioned above that this revision is received by transfer from Allahabad High Court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act No.29 of 2000) for its disposal. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Food Inspector has not complied the provisions of Rule 16, Rule 18 and Rule 21 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 16 requires the manner in which the food samples are to be packed and sealed, Rule 18 requires making memorandum of specimen impression of the seal used in the packet and Rule 21 requires that the quantity of preservative poured must be mentioned in the label. As far as the aforesaid rules are concerned, it is clear from the impugned judgment challenged before this court that P.W.1 Tej Pal Singh, Food Inspector has adduced evidence as to the compliance of Rule 16 and Rule 18. As to Rule 21 it is 6 sufficient to mention that the Food Inspector has proved that eighteen drops of formalin were poured in each vial before the same was sealed. Even if the quantity of preservative not mentioned in the label of the vial it cannot be said that the sample taken in which the preservative was poured, was not fit for analysis from the Central Food Laboratory. The accused/revisionist has not moved any application to get the sample examined from the Central Food Laboratory, after he received the notice relating to the report of the Public Analyst, Lucknow. 6. Therefore no error appears to have been committed by the trial court or by the appellate court in appreciating the evidence. This Court does not find any error committed by the trial court in recording conviction of accused under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, nor there appear any error on the part of the appellate court in affirming the same. As far as the sentence of six months imprisonment and direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- is concerned, said sentence was minimum and the first appellate court could not have passed the sentence lesser to the one passed by the trial court in the case where the 7 accused was found to have sold an adulterated food item. However, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., (read with section 482 of Cr.P.C.), considering the fact that the matter is about 29 years old, does not find any justification in sending the revisionist to jail again, particularly when he has under went more than one and half month in jail after he was taken into custody by the appellate court on 05.01.1988, and directed to be released on bail on 17.02.1988 by the Allahabad High Court. Relying on the case of Khem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994, SC 226, this revision deserves to be disposed of affirming the conviction of the revisionist under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. 7. The revision accordingly stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:19.04.2010 parul 8