# Pancham Singh Chauhan Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1006
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2081 of 2018
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pancham-singh-chauhan-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53691
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling paneer with
milk fat content below the prescribed standard
could be sustained when the courts below failed
to consider the applicability of the proviso to
Section 2(ia)(m) relating to deficiency caused
solely due to natural factors beyond human
control.

Headnotes
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
- ss. 7, 16; s.2(ia)(m) proviso - Food
adulteration - Paneer - Deficiency in
milk fat - Primary food - Natural causes
- Burden of proof - Failure to consider
statutory exception - Acquittal in revision

Held:
Paneer is a primary food item governed by the
standards prescribed in Appendix B to the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Mere deficiency of milk fat below the prescribed
minimum does not automatically constitute
adulteration under Section 2(ia)(m) unless it is
established that such deficiency was not solely
due to natural causes beyond human control.
[Paras 5-7, 9]

The proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) carves out a
statutory exception in favour of the accused
where the quality or purity of primary food falls
below the prescribed standard solely due to
natural causes. Neither the complaint nor the
evidence led by the prosecution adverted to this
aspect; nor was the issue examined by the trial
court or the appellate court. [Paras 6, 9]

In absence of any consideration of the statutory
proviso and without evidence to rule out natural
variation in milk fat content, conviction of a
petty shopkeeper for selling paneer deficient in
milk fat cannot be sustained. Failure to examine
applicability
of
the
proviso
vitiates
the
conviction. [Paras 6-10]

Judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s
Bhattacharjee Mahasya v. State of West Bengal
squarely applies. Impugned judgments of the
courts below set aside; revisionist acquitted.
[Paras 6, 10-11]

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
8 All. Pancham Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1007
M/s Bhattacharjee Mahasya and another
v. State of West Bengal and another,
Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 2022 (SC) -
applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954;
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Food adulteration; Paneer; Milk fat deficiency;
Primary food; Natural causes; Section 2(ia)(m)
proviso; Public analyst report; Burden of proof;
Failure to consider statutory exception.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal
No. 03 of 2014, affirming the judgment and
order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 460 of
2011 (State v. Pancham Singh Chauhan).

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Sudarshan Singh
For the State : Learned Government Advocate

## Text

1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and 25
Arms Act. Appellant Umesh is in jail.

93. Since, accused Mahesh and Gore
Lal are on bail, they are directed to
surrender in the trial court within a period
of one month from today, to undergo the
remaining sentence under Section 302/34
IPC, failing which, the trial court is
directed to adopt coercive measures for
securing their presence in accordance with
law.

94. A copy of this judgment be sent to
the trial court and the concerned jail
authorities
for
compliance,
through
Registrar (Compliance), forthwith.

95. Office is directed to send back the
trial court record. The trial court is directed
to submit it's Compliance report within 3
months.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1006
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2081 of 2018

Pancham Singh Chauhan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sudarshan Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether conviction of the revisionist under
Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling paneer with
milk fat content below the prescribed standard
could be sustained when the courts below failed
to consider the applicability of the proviso to
Section 2(ia)(m) relating to deficiency caused
solely due to natural factors beyond human
control.

Headnotes
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
- ss. 7, 16; s.2(ia)(m) proviso - Food
adulteration - Paneer - Deficiency in
milk fat - Primary food - Natural causes
- Burden of proof - Failure to consider
statutory exception - Acquittal in revision

Held:
Paneer is a primary food item governed by the
standards prescribed in Appendix B to the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Mere deficiency of milk fat below the prescribed
minimum does not automatically constitute
adulteration under Section 2(ia)(m) unless it is
established that such deficiency was not solely
due to natural causes beyond human control.
[Paras 5-7, 9]

The proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) carves out a
statutory exception in favour of the accused
where the quality or purity of primary food falls
below the prescribed standard solely due to
natural causes. Neither the complaint nor the
evidence led by the prosecution adverted to this
aspect; nor was the issue examined by the trial
court or the appellate court. [Paras 6, 9]

In absence of any consideration of the statutory
proviso and without evidence to rule out natural
variation in milk fat content, conviction of a
petty shopkeeper for selling paneer deficient in
milk fat cannot be sustained. Failure to examine
applicability
of
the
proviso
vitiates
the
conviction. [Paras 6-10]

Judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s
Bhattacharjee Mahasya v. State of West Bengal
squarely applies. Impugned judgments of the
courts below set aside; revisionist acquitted.
[Paras 6, 10-11]

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
8 All. Pancham Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1007
M/s Bhattacharjee Mahasya and another
v. State of West Bengal and another,
Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 2022 (SC) -
applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954;
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Food adulteration; Paneer; Milk fat deficiency;
Primary food; Natural causes; Section 2(ia)(m)
proviso; Public analyst report; Burden of proof;
Failure to consider statutory exception.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal
No. 03 of 2014, affirming the judgment and
order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 460 of
2011 (State v. Pancham Singh Chauhan).

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Sudarshan Singh
For the State : Learned Government Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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).
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 Adulteration Act, 1954 (Exb. Ka10).

(xi). A notice under Section 13(2)
of the Act was sent on 4.3.2011 (Paper
No.133/2).

(xii). The statement under Section
244 Cr.P.C. was recorded of P.W.1 P.K.
Rai, the Food Inspector.

(xiii). The charge was framed vide
order dated 16.03.2012 by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandauli against the revisionist
for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
8 All. Pancham Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1009

(xiv). The accused was read and
explained of it to which he denied the same
and claimed to be tried.

(xv). P.W.1 P.K. Rai, the Food
Inspector and P.W.2 Manoj Kumar Singh,
the Food Clerk were examined under
Section 246 Cr.P.C in support of the
prosecution.

(xvi).
The
accused
in
his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
recorded
on
2.4.2012,
denied
the
prosecution case in full.

(xvii).
The
trial
court
then
convicted the accused/revisionist as above
against which an appeal was filed which
was dismissed and thus the present revision
before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
argued that the item as allegedly collected
by the Food Inspector from the shop of the
revisionist is paneer. It is further submitted
that there is no evidence whatsoever that
the said place was a factory. It is further
submitted that the report of the public
analyst states that milk fat contained is less
than the prescribed limit of 50% of paneer
and thus the sample was declared to be
adulterated.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has relied upon the judgement
and order of the Apex Court in the case of
M/S
Bhattacharjee
Mahasya
and
another Vs. The State of West Bengal
and another : Crl. Appeal No. 1800 of
2022 (arising out of S.L. P. (Crl.) No.
5272 of 2022) and while placing para nos. 8,
9 and 10 of the same, it is submitted that if
the quality and purity of an article falls below
the prescribed limit, the same would be an
offence under Section 2(i-a)(m) of the Act
but the proviso to it gives an exception. It is
submitted that there is nothing on record to
show that the case would fall under the
proviso. It is submitted that the deficiency of
milk fat depends on the quality of milk and
this question has not been given into either in
the evidence or by the trial court and the
appellate court. The said paragraphs reads as
under:-

"8. An offence under Section 2(ia)
(m) will be made out if th quality or purity of
the article falls below the prescribe standard.
However, the proviso indicates an exception.
Section 2(ia) (m) reads as follows:

"2. Definition. In this Act unless
the context otherwise requires.-

(ia) "adulterated"-an article of
food shall be deemed to be adulterated-

(m) if the quality or purity of the
article falls below the prescribed standards
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 subclause.

Explanation. Where two or more
articles of primary food are mixed together
and the resultant article of food-

(a) is stored, sold or distributed
under
a
name
which
denotes
the
ingredients thereof; and
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) is not injurious to health.

then, such resultant article
shall not be deemed to be adulterated
within the meaning of this clause;"

9. There was no whisper in the
complaint or in the evidence as to
whether the case would fall under the
proviso. For instance, the report of the
Public Analyst says that the moisture
content was 77.6% and that as per the
prescribed standard, it shall not contain
more than 70%. But there is no indication
as to whether the moisture content was
more due to natural causes. Even, the
milk fat content of the dry matter may
depend upon the quality of the milk and
this question was also not gone into.

10. Therefore, we are of the
view that a petty shop owner has been
prosecuted by making much ado about
nothing. Hence, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order of the High
Court confirming the order of the
Sessions Court and the order of the
Magistrate are set aside. There shall be
no order as to costs."

7. As such the fact that the
deficiency in milk food could have been
due to natural reasons, has not been gone
into throughout the records and thus the
revisionist deserves benefit. He submits
that the conviction and sentence of the
revisionist by the trial court and the
judgement and order of the appellate
court deserves to be set-aside and the
revisionist deserves to be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.

8. Learned counsel for the State
opposed the prayer but could not
dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

9. After having heard learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the present
case is a case in which sample of paneer
was purchased from the shop of the
revisionist. The same was sent for
testing to the public analyst who found
it deficient in milk fat contents which
was less than the prescribed limit of
50% as it was found to be 35.8%. The
sample was thus declared adulterated on
which procedure was adopted and
complaint was filed. The revisionist
was tried and was convicted against
which an appeal was filed which was
also dismissed. The question regarding
applicability of the proviso of Section
2(i-a)(m) of the Act has not been
addressed at all at the stage of trial and
at the appellate stage. The revisionist is
entitled to the benefit of the same.

10.
The
present
revision
is
allowed. The impugned judgement and
order dated 31.05.2018 passed by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Chandauli and the
impugned judgement and order dated
25.01.2014 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandauli in the aforesaid
case are hereby set aside.

11.
The
revisionist-Pancham
Singh Chauhan is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. The
revisionist is on bail, he need not
surrender. His bail bond is cancelled
and sureties discharged.

12. Office is directed to transmit
the copy of this judgement along with
the trial court records to the concerned
trial court forthwith for its compliance
and necessary action.
----------
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1011
(2025) 8 ILRA 1011
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6354 of 2023

Madhu Yadav & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Ashok Kumar Yadav, Prem Shankar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Kedar Nath Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the dismissal of an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the
applicant failed to strictly prove a valid marriage
was sustainable, when evidence on record
disclosed long cohabitation, admissions in
departmental inquiry, and circumstances raising
a presumption of marital relationship warranting
a beneficial and purposive interpretation of the
term "wife".

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125
- Maintenance - Meaning of "wife" -
Live-in relationship - Presumption of
marriage - Beneficial construction -
Strict proof of marriage not mandatory -
Departmental
inquiry
admissions
-
Hyper-technical approach deprecated -
Interim maintenance - Remand.

Held:
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare provision
intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of
women and children. The expression "wife"
requires
a
broad
and
purposive
interpretation, and strict proof of a legally
valid marriage is not a sine qua non where
evidence indicates long cohabitation and holding
out as husband and wife. [Paras 16-20, 32]

Where parties lived together as husband and
wife for a considerable period, a presumption
in favour of marriage arises, rebuttable only
by cogent evidence. Admissions made by the
husband and his alleged first wife during a
departmental
inquiry,
acknowledging
solemnisation of marriage with the applicant,
constitute strong prima facie material supporting
such presumption. [Paras 25-29]

The Family Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach by insisting upon strict proof
of marriage, ignoring documentary evidence,
admissions in inquiry proceedings, and settled
law that maintenance claims cannot be defeated
on technicalities. [Paras 29-33]

Even assuming the applicant to be a second
wife, where her earlier marriage had dissolved
by death and no legal impediment existed on
her part, denial of maintenance would defeat
the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent,
being a salaried government employee, was
held capable of maintaining the applicant.
[Paras 30-32]

Impugned order dismissing the maintenance
application set aside; matter remanded for fresh
decision. Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per
month directed to be paid to the applicant-wife
during pendency of proceedings. [Paras 34-36].

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Chanmuniya
v.
Virendra
Kumar
Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 - applied;
Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar,
AIR 2018 SC 5218 - relied on; Badshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 -
followed; Ramesh Chandra Kaushal v.
Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 - referred;
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686 - relied on; Smt.
N.
Usha
Rani
v.
Moodudula Srinivas,
judgment dated 30.01.2025 (SC) - referred.

List of Acts / Statutes