Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Pancham Singh Chauhan - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 2081 of 2018
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Key Points: - The court acquitted the revisionist due to lack of consideration of natural causes for milk fat deficiency in paneer (!) (!) (!) . - Standards for paneer under Appendix B to the PF Act require milk fat not less than 50% on dry weight and moisture not more than 70% (!) (!) (!) . - The proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) provides an exception where deficiency is solely due to natural causes and beyond human control, meaning such article shall not be adulterated (!) (!) (!) . - The Public Analyst report showed milk fat 35.8% and moisture 77.6%, but there was no analysis of whether deficiencies were due to natural causes (!) (!) . - Trial and appellate courts failed to address the proviso and natural-cause deficiency issue, impacting the validity of conviction (!) (!) (!) . - The Court set aside lower court judgments and acquitted the revisionist, noting prosecution based on inadequately examined standards and natural-cause defense (!) (!) . - The opinion cites Bhattacharjee Mahasya case as authority on proviso applicability, but applies it to acquit here due to lack of evidence on natural causes (!) . - The trial records included sample collection, public analyst testing, sanctioning, and charge framing under PF Act sections 7/16 (!) (!) (!) . - The consumer shop context and "petty shop owner" language indicate misapplication of standards to a minor offense absent natural-cause justification (!) . - Final directive: acquittal of the revisionist and transmission of records for compliance (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the adulteration standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural deficiencies. (Para 9) |
| 4. ratios establishing the court's decision. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and directions issued by the court. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Anurag Pandey holding brief of Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The present revision under Sections 397 /401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-Pancham Singh Chauhan against the judgement and order dated 31.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2014 ( Pancham Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. ) wherein the said appeal has been dismissed and the judgement & order of the trial court has been affirmed and further against the judgement and order dated 25.01.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.460 of 2011 ( State Vs. Pancham Singh Chauhan ) whereby the accused-revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 7 /16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.
4. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused.
5. The facts arising out of the matter are as under:-
(i). On 20.11.2010, form-6 was prepared and paneer was taken from the revisionist (Exb. Ka-3).
(ii). A receipt dated 20.11.2010 was given by Pancham Singh Chauhan for the rate being Rs.100/- per kg. of paneer in which the sale was of 750 gram for Rs.75/- (Exb. Ka-4).
(iii). Memo was prepared by sending the sample to the Public Analyst, Government of U.P., Lucknow on 20.11.2010 (Exb. Ka- 5).
(iv). The said sample was sent by a registered post to the public analyst on 20.11.2010 (Exb. Ka-6).
(v). The sample was tested/analyzed on 20.12.2010 by the public analyst and a report dated 29.12.2010 for the same was prepared (Exb. Ka-7).
(vi). In the present matter we are concerned with Item No. A.- 11.02.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 prescribes the standards and limits for certain articles of food by specifying the same in Appendix B to the Rules which lays down the following standards:-
“A. 11.02.05 — CHHANNA OR PANEER means the product obtained from the cow or buffalo milk or a combination thereof by precipitation with sour milk, lactic acid or citric acid. It shall not contain more than 70.0 per cent moisture, and the milk fat content shall not be less than 50.0 per cent of the dry matter.
Provided that paneer or chhana when solid as low fat paneer or chhana, it shall confirm to the following requirements :-
| (i) Moisture | - Not more than 70.0 percent |
| (ii) Milk Fat | - Not more than 15.0 percent of dry matter Milk solids may also be used in preparation of this product.” |
(vii). The report of the public analyst reads as under:-
| “1-Butyrorefractometer reading of the extracted fat at 40°c-40.5 A-11.02.05 | ||
| 2-Moisture | ISI | 40.48% |
| 3- Milk fat (on dry weight basis) | ISI | 35.8% |
| 4-Test for Sugar | SOPM | Negative |
| 5-Test for Starch | SOPM | Negative |
| 6-Test for urea & CO³ | SOPM | Negative |
| 7-Test for Casein | I.S.I. | Positive |
Opinion: The Milk fat content is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 50% for Paneer. The sample is adulterated.”
(viii). Sanction was applied to the District Magistrate concerned vide letter dated 5.2.2011 by the Food Inspector (Exb. Ka-8).
(ix). Sanction was granted by the District Magistrate vide letter dated 25.2.2011 (Exb. Ka-9).
(x). A complaint dated 28.2.2011 was filed by the Food Inspector before the court concerned against the revisionist for violation of offences under Sections 7 (1) read with Section 2 (1-a)(a) punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulte
Prosecution for food adulteration requires clear evidence establishing standards and consideration of natural causes for deficiencies; failure to address these issues invalidates the conviction.
The central legal point established is that for an offence of food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it must be proven that the quality or purity of the article falls ....
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
Proper sampling procedures under Section 11 of the Act are vital for establishing food adulteration.
The defence of bona fide purchasers under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is available only if the accused proves that they purchased the adulterated food from a duly....
Testing the sample in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is essential for a successful prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
