Strict adherence to prescribed procedures and consideration of the accused's health in cases involving public health violations.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A for the State.

2. By means of this revision, the judgement and order dated 12.2.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2003 ( Mata Prasad Vs. State of U.P) as well as judgement and order dated 7.6.2003, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 147 of 1997 (State Vs. Mata Prasad), under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954[Act of 1954] have been challenged, whereby, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four month and a fine of Rs. 600/ and in default of payment of fine, further one month simple imprisonment has been ordered.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Varanasi, Sri Raj Narain Singh on 30.12.1995 purchased 450 gms food items Dhania (coriander) from the premises of the revisionist for getting the same analyzed by the Public Analyst. Form No.6, under Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955[Rules of 1955] was prepared on which the revisionist refused to sign. However, one witness Daya Shanker Singh signed as witness on that document. An endorsement was further made by the Food Inspector that he called the local people of the area to witness the same but they refused to give their names or address for the purpose. The purchased 'Dhania' was divided in three equal parts and were collected in clean dried empty bottles which was sealed thereafter. One part of the sample so collected was sent along with copy of Form No. VII to the Public Analyst, U.P. at Lucknow for analysis of adulteration. The report of the Public Analyst reveals that the adulteration in the food item exceeded maximum prescribed limit of 8% and the sample destroyed by insects exceeded 5% and in the sample, dead and living insects were also found. Along with all the documents and form, an application was sent to the Chief Medical Officer/Local Health Authority, Varanasi for according permission for prosecution and after obtaining his permission, the complaint application was filed before the Court. The court took cognizance on the basis of the complaint lodged and the case was committed to trial. The accused-revisionist appeared before the court.

4. On 28.8.1998, the charges were framed against the accused-revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954.

5. The Food Inspector, Raj Narain Singh was testified as PW-1 on oath who proved Form VI (Ext. Ka-1), receipt ( Ext. Ka-2), Form No.VII ( Ext. Ka-3), Public Analyst report ( Ext. Ka-4), application to the Chief Medical Officer for according permission for prosecution (Ext. ka-5), permission for prosecution (Ext. Ka-6) and the complaint (Ext. Ka-7). Thereafter, Ashok Kumar Srivastava who was Food Clerk also testified as PW-2.

6. PW-2 proved the Ext. Ka-6 as well as letter sent to the accused-revisionist dated 24.1.1997 (Ext. Ka-8), whereby, the accused-revisionist was informed that he could get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory as well as receipt of registered letter issued by the post office ( Ext. Ka-9). No other witness was examined by the prosecution.

7. The accused-revisionist gave his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [The Code], in which he stated that wrong sample was taken and that he was wrongly implicated in the case. The accused-revisionist also offered to give his justification/defence. In his defence, one Sabhanand Mishra was produced on behalf of the accused-revisionist as DW-1. DW-1 in his testimony stated that he belongs to the same village as the accused-revisionist and that the accused-revisionist neither had any shop nor does he do any agriculture work.

8. The Magistrate after analyzing the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses concluded that the accused-revisionist was g