# Amar Bahadur Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 67
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 484 of 2007
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-bahadur-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50583
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Section 244 - Evidence for
prosecution - The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7/16 -
Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of
certain articles of food/ Penalties , Section
2 (ia) (m) , 16 (1) (a) (i) - for punishing
an accused for an offence under Section
16(1)(a)(i) - prosecution has to lead
evidence and to prove that the quality or
purity of the article being primary food
has fallen below the prescribed standards
or its constituents are not present in
quantities within the prescribed limits of
variability,
in
either
case
due
to
adulteration made by the accused and
such fall in quality or purity is not due to
natural causes. (Para - 15)

(B) The Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 - Proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) -
For milk to be declared adulterated -
prosecution
must
prove
that
the
percentage
of
fat
falling
below
the
prescribed standards was not within the
prescribed limits of variability and not due
to natural or human agency. (Para - 16)

Complaint against revisionist - cognizance over
complaint - Food Inspector got herself examined
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and cross-examined -
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trial Court framed charges against revisionist -
prosecution not provided evidence - regarding
admissible variation limits for standard of fat
percentage in cow milk - as the level of fat
varies from cow to cow - not provided evidence
that shortage of fat in the milk sample is due to
adulteration by revisionist - which cannot be
attributed to natural causes or human agency.
(Para -16)

HELD:-Trial court and appellate court have not
considered the prosecution's lack of evidence
regarding the variability in the standard of fat
percentage in cow milk. Not provided evidence
that shortfall in fat in the sample is due to
adulteration by the revisionist, and that the
shortage was not due to natural or humancontrolled causes. As a result, the sample of
milk cannot be considered adulterated solely
because the percentage of fat in the milk was
14% less than the fixed standard. Judgement
and order convicting revisionist and sentencing
him for rigorous imprisonment of six months
along with fine are set-aside.(Para - 17)

Revision allowed. (E-7)

## Text

7 All. Amar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
67
1992 and since then, 30 years have elapsed
and neither there is any offence committed
by the revisionists nor they have been
convicted for any offence. Even prior to the
crime in question, revisionists have not
been convicted for any offence. I also find
that Raj Bahadur, by whose lathi-blow,
hand of Smt. Heera Devi was fractured, has
already died and another convict, Atma
Singh has also died. Both the revisionists,
as on date, are of age more than 60 years.

38.

In
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances, I am of the view that
revisionists are entitled for benefit of
Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and, therefore, instead of
sentencing the revisionists under Section
325 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment of
three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and
under
Section
323
with
rigorous
imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.
1,000/- each, they shall file two bonds to
the tune of Rs. 20,000/- coupled with
personal bonds to the effect that they shall
not commit any offence and shall be of
good behaviour and shall maintain peace
during the period of one year. If there is
breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,
revisionists will subject themselves to
undergo sentence before the Magistrate as
per Rules. The aforesaid bonds shall be
filed by the convicts within two months
from the date of this judgement.

39. Revision is partly allowed
regarding sentence of the revisionist.

40. Let record of trial court &
appellate court along with certified copy of
this order be sent to the court concerned for
necessary information and compliance.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 67
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 484 of 2007

Amar Bahadur Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sushil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Section 244 - Evidence for
prosecution - The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7/16 -
Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of
certain articles of food/ Penalties , Section
2 (ia) (m) , 16 (1) (a) (i) - for punishing
an accused for an offence under Section
16(1)(a)(i) - prosecution has to lead
evidence and to prove that the quality or
purity of the article being primary food
has fallen below the prescribed standards
or its constituents are not present in
quantities within the prescribed limits of
variability,
in
either
case
due
to
adulteration made by the accused and
such fall in quality or purity is not due to
natural causes. (Para - 15)

(B) The Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 - Proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) -
For milk to be declared adulterated -
prosecution
must
prove
that
the
percentage
of
fat
falling
below
the
prescribed standards was not within the
prescribed limits of variability and not due
to natural or human agency. (Para - 16)

Complaint against revisionist - cognizance over
complaint - Food Inspector got herself examined
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and cross-examined -
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trial Court framed charges against revisionist -
prosecution not provided evidence - regarding
admissible variation limits for standard of fat
percentage in cow milk - as the level of fat
varies from cow to cow - not provided evidence
that shortage of fat in the milk sample is due to
adulteration by revisionist - which cannot be
attributed to natural causes or human agency.
(Para -16)

HELD:-Trial court and appellate court have not
considered the prosecution's lack of evidence
regarding the variability in the standard of fat
percentage in cow milk. Not provided evidence
that shortfall in fat in the sample is due to
adulteration by the revisionist, and that the
shortage was not due to natural or humancontrolled causes. As a result, the sample of
milk cannot be considered adulterated solely
because the percentage of fat in the milk was
14% less than the fixed standard. Judgement
and order convicting revisionist and sentencing
him for rigorous imprisonment of six months
along with fine are set-aside.(Para - 17)

Revision allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State and
perused the record.

2. Revisionist has filed this revision
challenging therein judgment and order
dated 27.05.2005 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in
Criminal Case No. 4423 of 2003 (State
Vs. Amar Bahadur Singh) whereby
revisionist has been convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 7/16 of
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 and has been sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment of six months with a fine
of Rs. 1,000/- and judgment and order
dated 22.08.2007 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur
whereby Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2005
(Amar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
has been dismissed.

3. A complaint case was filed
against revisionist in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sultanpur
which
was
registered
as
Criminal Case No. 4423 of 2003 under
Section 7/16 of The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.

4. Complainant, Smt. Kiran Yadav
in the complaint has stated that she is
Food Inspector and found revisionist,
Amar Bahadur Singh carrying 30 litres
milk for sale on 09.08.2003 at 11:00 a.m.
near Police Station Lambhua, District
Sultanpur. She, on being suspicious of
adulteration
in
milk,
gave
her
introduction to revisionist, Amar Bahadul
Singh and by paying Rs. 9/-, purchased
750 ml. milk. In the complaint, it has
been further stated that the aforesaid milk
was distributed in three equal parts and
was put in three clean bottles and in each
bottle, 20-20 drops of 40% formalin was
added and thereafter caps were put on
each bottle and all the three samples were
properly
sealed.
One
sample
was
deposited in the office of Chief Medical
Officer, Sultanpur for sending it to Public
Analyst at Lucknow. It was further stated
in the complaint that later on Public
Analyst,
Government
of
U.P.
after
examining the aforesaid sample, has
forwarded his report vide letter dated
26.08.2003 and in the said report it is
mentioned that fat in the milk has been
found 14% less than the standard of fat
prescribed for cow milk.

5. Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance over the
aforesaid complaint thereafter complainant,
Food Inspector, Smt. Kiran Yadav got
7 All. Amar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
69
herself examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
and she was also cross-examined.

6. On the aforesaid basis, learned
Trial Court framed charges against the
revisionist under Section 7/16 of The
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
on 03.12.2004. Revisionist pleaded not
guilty and therefore, learned Trial Court
started trial.

7. Statement of revisionist was also
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. Learned Trial Court has considered
the testimony of Food Inspector, Smt.
Kiran Yadav and found her version
absolutely correct. Further Trial Court
recorded a finding that Public Analyst,
Govt. of U.P., after examination of the
sample of the milk collected by Smt. Kiran
Yadav, has given its report that fat in the
sample of milk was found 14% less than
standard of fat fixed for the cow milk,
therefore, revisionist is liable to be
convicted for offence punishable under
Section 7/16 of The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and thereby has
sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment
of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

9.

Revisionist
challenged
the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
27.05.2005 passed by learned Trial Court in
Criminal Case No. 4423 of 2003 by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2005 (Amar
Bahadur Singh Vs. State) before Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Sultanpur.

10. Learned Appellate Court has
considered the evidence appreciated by the
trial court and, thereafter has passed order
on 22.08.2007 wherein it has been
concluded that the prosecution has proved
its case against the accused under Section
16(1)(a)(i) of The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and therefore,
conviction
and
sentence
given
vide
judgment and order dated 27.05.2005
passed by the learned Trial Court does not
suffer from any illegality.

11. I find that the prosecution during
trial has based its case on the report of the
Public Analyst, Govt. of U.P. wherein it has
been said that in the sample milk, fat was
found 14% less than the standard of fat
fixed for cow milk but prosecution did not
lead any evidence before the trial court that
the revisionist has done some adulteration
in the milk and thereby the percentage of
fat in the sample milk has become less than
the standard of fat fixed for cow milk.

12. For arriving at a correct
conclusion, certain provisions of The
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
are necessary to be seen, therefore, they are
extracted as under:-

"7. Prohibitions of manufacture,
sale, etc., of certain articles of food.- No
person shall himself or by any person on
his behalf manufacture for sale, or store,
sell or distribute-

(i) any adulterated food;

(ii) any misbranded food;

(iii) any article of food for the
sale of which a licence is prescribed, except
in accordance with the conditions of the
licence;

(iv) any article of food the sale of
which is for the time being prohibited by
the Food (Health) Authority in the interest
of public health;

(v) any article of food in
contravention of any other provision of this
Act or of any rule made thereunder; or

(vi) any adulterant."
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"16. Penalties .- (1) Subject to
the provisions of sub-section (1A) if any
person-

(a) whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, imports into
India or manufactures for sales or stores,
sells or distributes any article of food-

(i) which is adulterated within the
meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of
section 2 or misbranded within the
meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the
sale of which is prohibited under any
provision of this Act or any rule made
thereunder or by an order of the Food
(Health) Authority;

(ii) other than an article of food
referred
to
in
sub-clause
(i),
in
contravention of any of the provisions of
this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or

(b) whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, imports into
India or manufactures for sales or stores,
sells or distributes any adulterant which is
not injurious to health; or

(c) prevents a food inspector from
taking a sample as authorised by this Act;
or

(d) prevents a food inspector from
exercising any other power conferred on
him by or under this Act; or

(e) being a manufacturer of an
article of food, has in his possession, or in
any of the premises occupied by him, any
adulterant which is not injurious to health;
or

(f) uses any report or certificate
of a test or analysis made by the Director of
the Central Food Laboratory or by a public
analyst or any extract thereof for the
purpose of advertising any article of food;
or

(g) whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, gives to the
vendor a false warranty in writing in
respect of any article of food sold by him,

he shall, in addition to the
penalty to which he may be liable under the
provisions of section 6, be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months but which may extend
to three years, and with fine which shall not
be less than one thousand rupees:

13. Aforesaid Section 16 (1) (a) (i)
provides that subject to provisions of SubSection (1A), if any person whether by
himself or by any other person on his
behalf imports into India or manufactures
for sale or stores, sale or distributes any
article of food which is adulterated within
the meaning of Sub-Clause (m) of Clause
(ia) of Section 2 shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months but which may extend
to three years and with fine which shall not
be less than Rs. 100/-.

14. Now it is necessary to look into
Section 2 (ia) (m) which is extracted as
under:-

"(m) if the quality or purity of the
article falls below the prescribed standard
or its constituents are present in quantities
not
within
the
prescribed
limits
of
variability but which does not render it
injurious to health:

Provided that, where the quality
or purity of the article, being primary food,
has fallen below the prescribed standards
or its constituents are present in quantities
not
within
the
prescribed
limits
of
variability in either case, solely due to
natural causes and beyond the control of
human agency, then, such article shall not
be deemed to be adulterated within the
meaning of this sub-clause."

15. From bare perusal of proviso
appended to Section 2(ia)(m), it becomes
7 All. Amar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
71
patently menifest that for punishing an
accused for an offence under Section
16(1)(a)(i), prosecution has to lead
evidence and to prove that the quality or
purity of the article being primary food
has fallen below the prescribed standards
or its constituents are not present in
quantities within the prescribed limits of
variability,
in
either
case
due
to
adulteration made by the accused and
such fall in quality or purity is not due to
natural causes.

16. Prosecution has not led any
evidence in respect of the admissible
variation limits (if any) regarding the
standard of percentage of fat in cow milk
as definitely the level of fat is bound to
vary
from
cow
to
cow.
Further
prosecution has also not led any
evidence that the shortage of fat which
has been found in the sample of milk
taken from the revisionist, is only due
to adulteration made by him and the
said shortage of fat could not have
occurred due to natural causes and for
any reason beyond the control of human
agency. Proviso appended to Section
2(ia)(m) makes it crystal clear that for a
primary food i.e. milk to be declared
adulterated, it is obligatory upon the
prosecution to prove that the percentage
of fat which has fallen below the
prescribed standards was not within the
prescribed limits of variability and
further the said shortfall was not due to
natural causes and causes beyond the
control of human agency.

17. In the present case, trial court as
well
as
appellate
court
have
not
considered that prosecution has not led
any evidence in respect of prescribed
limits (if any) of variability in the
standard of percentage of fat in cow milk
and has also not led any evidence that
for shortfall of fat in the sample in
question is the result of adulteration
made by the revisionist and further the
said shortage of percentage of fat was
not due to any natural cause or due to
any cause beyond the control of human
agency. In absence of any evidence, as
required under proviso appended with
Section 2 (ia)(m), the sample of milk
taken from the revisionist cannot be
said to be adulterated only for the
reason that the percentage of fat in the
milk was 14% less than the standard
fixed.

18. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that judgement and order dated
27.05.2005 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Sultanpur
convicting the revisionist under Section
7/16
of The
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing
him for rigorous imprisonment of six
months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and
judgement
and
order
dated
22.08.2007
passed
by
Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur
in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2005 are
liable to be set-aside and, accordingly,
they are set-aside.

19. Revision is allowed. Revisionist
is, hereby, acquitted from the aforesaid
charge.

20. Revisionist is already on bail.
Sureties
given
in
favour
of
the
revisionist, stand discharged.

21. Let copy of this judgement be
sent to the court concerned for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 7 ILRA 72
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 243 of 1995

Smt. Madresh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Devendra Singh, Sri Pravindra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Samir Sharma, Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra,
Sri Vikas Sahai

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections 166, 168 & 173- Death in accidentGrant of Compensation-Future ProspectsDeceased was aged about 36 years-Rule 220A(3) of the Rules of 1998, deceased falls in the
category of 40 years and below, entitling his
dependents to add future prospect to his
income to extent 50% of his salaryClaimant's
award
is
modified
and
the
compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.
5,82,980/-. The sum of money shall carry
simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of institution of the claim
petition, until realization. The entire sum of
enhanced compensation shall be payable to
the claimants in the manner that 60% of the
compensation shall go to the widow, and out
of the balance 40%, the other four claimants
shall equally share. (Para 1 to 25)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. Vs DTC (2009) 6
SCC 121

2. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 7 SCC 476
3. Helen C. Rebello Vs M SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90
: 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]

4. National Ins. Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680

5. New India Assur. Co. Ltd Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors.. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 822

6. Sushil Kumar & ors. Vs M/s. Sampark Lojastic
Pvt. Ltd & ors. (2017) 35 LCD 1311

7. Ram Sarup Vs Munshi (1963) AIR SC 553

8. Dayawati Vs Inderjit (1966) AIR SC 1423
9. Mula Vs Godhu (1971) AIR SC 89

10. Amarjit Kaur Vs Pritam Singh (1974) AIR SC
2068

11. Puttamma Vs K.L. Narayana Reddy (2013)
15 SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2014) 3
SCC (Cri) 574

12. UP SRTC Vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC
362

13. Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram & ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an appeal by the claimants
of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.48 of
1992,
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. According to the claimantappellants, who are dependents of the late
Rajvir Singh, the deceased, on the 2nd of
December, 1991 was proceeding from
Roorkee to Meerut on board Maruti Car,
bearing registration No. DNC-2281. He
was travelling on the car along with Raj
Kumar and some others. The car was
moving according to the rule of the road
and at a controlled speed. At forty minutes