1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 477 of 2010 • Rammurthy, S/o Appanna Podi, aged about 44 years, R/o Puraina, Post Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, C.G. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Food Inspector, Office of Dy. Director Food and Cosmetics, District Durg, C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.61/2007, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.03.1987, the Food Inspector namely S.F. Banker (PW-1) lodged a complaint stating therein that on 20.11.1986, he inspected the Kirana shop of the present applicant AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.02.13 10:38:12 +0530 2 along with witnesses and took 600 gms wheat flour amounting to Rs.1.80/-. Thereafter, he divided the wheat flour in three parts of 200 gms each which were kept in the bottles, sealed and sent them for analysis to Bhopal. After analysis, it was found that the wheat flour was adulterated. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Section has been registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 1954 was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, C.G. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.09.2010 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the overall evidence on record for holding the applicant guilty. He further submits that the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954 have not been properly complied with by the prosecution. He also submits that registered letter (Ex.P-10) and its receipt (Ex.P-11) have been sent to the applicant in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954, but no such acknowledgment has been filed on record to show that notice was sent and received by the applicant, which is mandatory as per Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954. He also submits that independent witnesses namely PW-2 P. Paparao and PW-3 B. Paparao have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. On these 3 premises, he urged that the criminal revision may be allowed and the applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Narayana Prasad Sahu vs State of Madhya Pradesh1. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court and submits that prosecution has complied with all the provisions as contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954. Therefore, the present revision filed by the applicant be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce Sections 13 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1954, which read as under:- “13. Report of public analyst.:- (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub- section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 9. Reading of sub-section-2 of the Section 13 would show that it gives a right to the persons who are prosecuted that if they so desire may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the report of Public Analyst to send the article kept with the Local (Health) Authority to be analysed by the Central Food 1 (2022) 1 SCC 87 4 Laboratory. However, in the present case, PW-1 S.F. Banker has stated that a registered letter (Ex.P-10) through postal receipt (Ex.P-11) has been sent to the applicant as per provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954, but no such acknowledgment has been filed on record to show that any letter was sent and received by the applicant and in absence of such acknowledgment on record, it can safely be inferred that there is non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954. Apart from this, although the trial Court allowed the report (Ex.P- 12) sent by the Public Analyst to the applicant as a secondary evidence, but it is a carbon copy / printed proforma of the document and there is no specific mention of description of seal in the said document (Ex.P-12). Moreover, there is no specific mention in the report (Ex.P-12) as to how much percentage of the wheat flour was adulterated nor there was any mention about its standard. Besides, independent witnesses namely PW- 2 P. Paparao and PW-3 B. Paparao have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Narayana Prasad Sahu (supra) has held in para 9 which reads as under:- “9. On the basis of endorsements of the Postman appearing on the postal envelope containing the report, the High Court has recorded a finding of refusal on the part of the appellant to accept the report. The said finding is obvious erroneous as the endorsements on the postal envelope were not proved by examining the Postman. Moreover, the High Court has glossed over the mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of serving a copy of the report on the accused. Evidence adduced by the prosecution was of mere dispatch of the report. Hence, the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 was not complied with. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.” 11. When the present case is examined in the light of aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in Narayana Prasad (Supra) coupled with the above 5 evidence, it is quite vivid that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954 and that prosecution has also failed to bring on record any cogent and clinching evidence which would show the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 28.03.2007 and that of Appellate Court dated 10.09.2010 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 1954 by extending him the benefit of doubt. 13. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. 14. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh