High Court allowed revision in food adulteration case. Conviction set aside as Food Inspector purchased 750ml but sent less than the prescribed 500ml quantity for public analyst testing, violating procedure.
Impugned judgment and orders set aside; Revisionist acquitted; Bail bond cancelled; Sureties discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205104
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 824 of 2016
Revisionist :- Mahtab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey,Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
analyst is Ex. Ka-7 to the records. The revisionist exercised his right under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory for analysis which although found it to be deficient in the prescribed amount of milk fat but did not find it to be containing urea. The complaint was filed after which charges were framed against the accused/revisionist vide order dated 27.06.2001 for the offences under Section 7(1)(16)(1)(A) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Criminal Case No. 312 of 1999 are hereby set aside.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 27.10.2023 Naresh
Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings were illegal due to collection of a 750ml milk sample and sending only one part (less than 500ml) for analysis contrary to PFAD Rules 22.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahtab
State of U.P.
Another
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
