State Of U.P. vs. Jaswant& Ors.

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3785 of 2012

Revisionist :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Jaswant And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- N.K. Singh Yadav,Sunil Vashisth

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

Heard learned A.G.A. appearing for the revisionist-State and Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the material placed on record.

Instant criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of U.P. against order of discharge dated 18.04.2012 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, District Meerut in Sessions Trial No.1189 of 2011 (State of U.P. Versus Jaswant Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.352 of 2009 under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C., Police Station Saoorpur, District Meerut whereby learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut has discharged the accused persons.

It is argued by the learned A.G.A. appearing for State-revisionist that vide impugned order dated 18.04.2012, though report of the public analysts is to the effect that the seized Mawa was adulterated but all the opposite parties have been discharged of the charges under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. The order of discharge has been passed in complete violation of the provisions relating to the discharge and hence the order of discharge is wholly illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is next argued that there were sufficient material on record for framing the charges against the accused-opposite parties but the court below in a most perfunctory manner has discharged them. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 8 has argued that in view of provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the police has no right to search any place, seize any article of food or adulterant. There is also no report of public analyst that the seized article was found harmful for human consumption rather the public analyst has submitted vague report to the effect that it is adulterated. Therefore, the order of the court below discharging the opposite parties under aforesaid sections is a just, proper and legal order and it does not call for any interference by this Court.

There are certain ingredients which are required for constituting an offence under Section 272 IPC. Similarly Section 273 requires certain ingredients to be fulfilled before the offence of adulteration can be said to be made. The ingredients are " that somebody selling food article or drinks which has been rendered noxious/unfit for consumption, with such knowledge or having reasons to believe that the same is a noxious food item. To put it differently, Sections 272/273 IPC are only attracted if it is shown that the adulteration is deliberate, intentional or with knowledge.

For the discussion made above, prayer for quashing or setting aside the

impugned order is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order or the proceedings under challenge. The order of discharge passed by the court below is just,proper and well discussed and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

The revision lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.7.2021 MN/-