Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65609 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3011 of 2018 Revisionist :- Durga Prasad @ Durga Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records. 3. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-Durga Prasad @ Durga Singh Yadav against the judgement and order dated 18.8.2018, passed by Session Judge Jalaun, Orai, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2017 (Durga Prasad @ Durga Singh V. State of U.P.), whereby the judgement and order dated 20.1.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Kalpi, Jalaun in Case No. 577 of 2010 (State Vs. Durga Prasad Yadav) under section 7/16 (1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun has been affirmed but the conviction awarded to the revisionist has been modified. Consequently, the revisionist has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist has to undergo further detention for a period of 1 month. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.5.1999 at about 11 AM, Sri R.B. Pal, the Food Inspector found the revisionist carrying milk for sale which was told to him to be mixed milk of buffalo and cow and on a suspicion of the same to be adulterated he stopped the revisionist and purchased 660 mili liter mixed milk on payment of Rs.8/- and prepared the receipt and other documents on which the revisionist endorsed his signature. Public present on the spot were asked to give their testimony but no one stood ready. The sample was then treated with solution of formalin and sealed in three bottles in equal quantity. The process of sealing and labelling was done and then one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, U.P., Lucknow for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report no.5845, dated 29.6.1999 opined that the said sample was deficient in milk fat by less than 38% and milk solid non fat by less than 8.5% and glucose was also present in the sample. Thereafter the application dated 19.7.1999 along with all the documents regarding sample for sanction of prosecution was given by the complainant to the C.M.O. The C.M.O has sent sanction for prosecution of the accused under the Food Adulteration Act and thereafter a complaint dated 7.8.1999 was filed by the said Food Inspector. 5. In the trial R.B. Pal, the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Hari Mohan Verma, Senior Food Clerk in the office of C.M.O. was examined as P.W.2 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. 6. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. In the trial in defence three witnesses were examined i.e. the accused himself as D.W.-1, Ram Kishun as D.W.-2 and Ravi Vajpayee as D.W.-3. The trial court finding the prosecution case to be beyond reasonable doubt and finding that the milk, which was mixed milk is adulterated convicted the revisionist as aforesaid. The revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge concerned, which was dismissed by the judgement and order dated 18.8.2018. Against the said judgement and order, the present criminal revision is preferred before this Court. 7. The revisionist was then convicted for offence under section 7/16 (1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for three year R.I with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months additional imprisonment. He has been extended benefit of set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. In the appeal the same was although dismissed but the conviction of the appellant was reduced to 6 months R.I. from three year R.I. The fine remained same and default clause was reduced to one month. The present revision has thus been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the prosecution against the revisionist was drawn on an incorrect finding of the Public Analyst inasmuch as the prescribed standard of milk solid not fat is 8.5% whereas the same was found to be 7.4%. It is argued that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution. In defence three witnesses i.e. the accused himself as D.W.-1, Ram Kishun as D.W.-2 and Ravi Vajpayee as D.W.-3 were examined. Ram Kishun (D.W.2) in his examination has stated that Durga Prasad is resident of his village and he has not done the business of milk ever but stated that 14 years back he had collected milk for being given to someone for his consumption. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been sent by the Food Inspector or received by the revisionist and as such valuable right of the accused/revisionist safeguarding his interest is violated. The defence of the revisionist in the matter is that he is not a businessman of milk and neither was the milk being taken for sell by him. In his defence he has appeared in the defence box himself as D.W.1 and has further produced two other witnesses in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also. His specific case is that he is not a businessman of milk and milk was being taken by him for being given to someone for use in a house in a function which was asked for by the said person. Although the trial court has referred to the testimony of three defence witnesses but has not conclusively dealt with it and given its finding regarding their versions. 9. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments and argued that the trial court has given cogent reasons for convicting the revisionist. The appellate court has also considered the matter in its true prospective and has come to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In defence the revisionist has appeared as D.W.1 and has stated that he is not a businessman of milk and neither was the milk being taken for sale by him. He has also produced two other witnesses in his defence. His specific case is that he is not a businessman of milk and milk was being taken by him for being given to someone for use in a house in a function which was asked for by the said person. The trial court has not conclusively dealt with the defence witnesses and given its finding regarding their versions. 11. In view of the discussions as above, this Court extends the benefit of doubt to the revisionist. 12. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 18.8.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai and the impugned judgement and order dated 20.1.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Kalpi, Jalaun are hereby set aside. 13. The revisionist-Durga Prasad @ Durga Singh Yadav is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. 14. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this judgement along with the trial court records to the concerned trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action. 15. The file be consigned to records. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad