The judgment emphasizes the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the compliance with sampling procedures, and the extension of the benefit of Section 16(A) to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2019 (Ram Ratan Vs. Vivek Kumar and Another), whereby the conviction and sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 28.06.2019 in Case No. 3872 of 2010 against accused appellant Ram Ratan for charge under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been affirmed. The judgment and order of trial court dated 28.06.2019 has also been challenged.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant from present criminal appeal are that on 05.03.2010, the complainant Food Inspector working on orders of local Health Officer intercepted a milk vendor at 09:15 hours near Police Station-Bhidnu, Gathmpur road, District-Kanpur Nagar, who was taking milk in his bicycle in 4 containers each having around 20 ltrs of milk, therefore he was carrying a total of 80 lts of mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The Food Inspector purchased 1500 ml milk for Rs. 36 as sample and received an acknowledgement from the vendor/ present accused. The complainant tried to enjoin local witnesses but they neither disclosed their name nor agreed to be a witness. The sample were kept in 3 dry and empty small bottles in equal amount and was duly sealed, labelled and tagged and signature of the vendor was taken on each bottle of the sample. The copies of Form 7 were prepared and one set of sample was sent for examination to Public Analyst, Lucknow through speed post. The report of Public Analyst was received in the office of Local Health Officer, Kanpur on 04.06.2010 as Test Report No. 3518 dated 17.04.2010, wherein the sample of milk was found adulterated. The complainant Food Inspector, Vivek Kumar received sanction for prosecution from the D.M., Kanpur Nagar, Sri Mukesh Meshram and filed the present complaint. In report of Public Analyst, the sample was found short of 13 percent milk fat and the sample was not found up to prescribed standard and thus, held to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after filing of a complaint by Food Inspector, the statement of the accused was recorded and substance of accusation was explained to him which he denied and claimed to be tried. In prosecution evidence, P.W.-1 Shri Vivek Kumar, the complaint (Food Inspector), P.W.-2 Om Ji Srivastava, Food Clerk were examined and 8 documents were accepted during evidence. The accused had not adduced any oral evidence during trial. Learned Magistrate after considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, observed that in present case, the sample was filled up on 05.03.2010 and cognizance of the case was taken by the Court on 17.08.2010 which is within 3 years from the date of commencement of the Act, as provided under Section 97 (4) of Food Safety and Standards Act. Therefore, in the opinion of learned Trial Court, the court was well within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 2006 and on facts of the case the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act were not applicable.

3. Learned Trial Court dispelled the submission of learned counsel for the accused that the District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution in mechanical manner and did not perused any documents submitted along with the application for grant of sanction. The learned Trial Court also observed that District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution after perusing the relevant documents and as well as in the light of report of Public Analyst. He found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.-1, who stated in cross-examination that accused had told him that he is milk vendor and was going to sell milk. He also dispelled proposition of the accused side that the sample was not taken in accordance with rules and there was no occasion to disbelieve the testimony of