Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30667 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2597 of 2013 Revisionist :- Jaswant Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Vi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records. 3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2013 passed by Session Judge, Maharajganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2013 ( Jaswant Chaudhary vs. State) and the judgment and order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, in Case No. 508 of 2001 (State vs. Jaswant Chaudhary), Police Station Chowk, District Maharajganj, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for 06 months simple imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days additional imprisonment. 4. The facts of the case are that the on 20.11.1999 Murari Lal, the Food Inspector, Mithaura, District Maharajganj went to the shop of the revisionist and found him selling boiled buffalo milk. On suspicion of the same being adulterated he asked for 600 ml of the said milk after which the accused from a container containing 20 liters of boiled milk gave him 600 ml milk on the purchase. The same was ceased as per rules and papers were prepared. The sample of the purchased milk was sent to the Food Analyst who vide his report dated 15.12.1999 opined that the sample was of boiled buffalo milk and was of the opinion that the same as per the standards of buffalo milk was found to be having 53% milk fat less and 49% milk solids non-fat less in it. The same was thus considered to be adulterated and after obtaining sanction from the C.M.O. concerned a complaint dated 19.03.2001 was filed by the Food Analyst before the C.J.M. concerned. 5. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C Murari Lal Yadav the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.-1, V.S. Kushwaha was examined as P.W.-2 and Majeed Khan was examined as P.W.-3. The said persons were examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. also. 6. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity, however, no defence evidence was led. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the present case there is no finding of the trial court concerned that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been served on the revisionist- accused. It is submitted that the same is a serious violation of his right to be defended adequately. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2019 decided on 31.07.2019 and while placing paragraph 15 has submitted the same to buttress his argument. It is submitted that even the P.W.-1 in his cross-examination has stated that no document pertaining to Section 13 (2) of the Act is on record but the trial court although has returned a finding that Exb: Ka-10 is a document for the same which has been proved by P.W.-3. It is submitted that as such there is serious discrepancy and doubt regarding the compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. It is further submitted that there is no finding given by the trial court that the notice of Section 13 (2) of the Act as alleged to have been sent has been received by the accused-respondent. It is submitted that as such the valuable right of the accused for defending himself is violated. 8. Learned cousnel for the State although vehemently opposed the present revision but could not dispute the arguments which are based on record. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that P.W.-1 the Food Inspector has in his cross-examination stated that there is no document regarding Section 13 (2) of the Act on record. However, the trial court states that Exb: Ka-10 is a document on record. Perusal of Exb: Ka-10 goes to show that it is a sanction accorded by the C.M.O. concerned. There is no finding of the trial court that no notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been received by the accused- respondent. The same is clearly against the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra (supra). The fact regarding sending of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act and silence with regards to its receipt by the accused-respondent thus is highly doubtful. 10. In view of the same, it is a fit case for extending the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent. 11. The revision is thus allowed by extending the benefit of doubt to the revisionist. The conviction and sentence is hereby set-aside. 12. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 13. A copy of this judgement along with the trial court records be sent to the trial court forthwith for communication and necessary action. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad