Jageshwar Gupta Alias Munna And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1633 of 2024
Jageshwar Gupta Alias Munna and 2 others
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajatshatru Singh, Arun Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON’BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajatshatru Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
D.P.S. Chauhan, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and
perused the records.
2. By means of the instant revision the revisionists have assailed the
validity of an order dated 03.01.2024, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-I Hamirpur in Sessions Case No.1762 of 2023: State vs.
Sudesh @ Swadesh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.486 of 2022,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station
Rath, District Hamirpur whereby the learned trial court has framed charges
against the revisionists for the aforesaid offences.
3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged
by a Senior Inspector of Police on 16.09.2022 against the revisionists stating
that on the basis of information received from an informer, a police team
raided the house of revisionist no.1. One machine used for cutting betel nut,

2
CRLR No. - 1633 of 2024
36 packets of tobacco kept in five sacks, cut pieces of betel nut in 11
sacks, Pandit Supari wrapper rolls in three sacks, Kuber wrapper rolls in
one sack, betel nut powder 10 sacks, 3 liters of chemical kept in a cane
and 2 liters of peppermint were recovered from the basement of the
house. Revisionist no.1 stated that his brother-in-law Sudesh (the
revisionist no.2) is his partner in the business. The police called the
Chief Food Inspector and Commercial Tax Officer on the spot. The
aforesaid officers reached the spot and took samples of the material
recovered. The revisionist no.3 was also arrested and stated that he used
to pack the mixture of betel nut and supply the same.
4. The FIR states that the accused persons were manufacturing
harmful gutkha, pan masala and tobacco-mixed betel nut by using
poisonous chemical substances. 
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-
sheet on 21.02.2023. The trial court took cognizance of the offences. By
the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 The learned trial court framed
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
272, 273 and 120-B I.P.C. The order has been challenged on the ground
that the prosecution allegations and the material do not make out the
charge.
6. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the revision.
However, no material collected during investigation or any test report of
the material recovered from the accused persons have been annexed
therewith. The learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharamappa Gogi v. Praveen
Murthy: (2016) 6 SCC 268, wherein it was held that “The purpose of
framing a charge against an accused person is to acquaint him with the
incriminating facts and circumstances proposed to be proved against him
in the trial to follow. The principal objective is to afford him an
opportunity of preparing his defence against the charge.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
allegations do not make out the commission of any cognizable offence

3
CRLR No. - 1633 of 2024
and the trial court has erred in law in framing charges against the
revisionists for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 and
120-B IPC. 
8. The trial court framed charges under Section 420 Cr.P.C. on the
ground that the alleged material has been recovered from the house of
revisionist no.1 and prosecution documents established that the accused
persons were engaged in the manufacture of gutkha, pan masala and
tobacco-mixed betel nut, which was harmful for human health. 
9. Section 420 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of
cheating, which is defined under Section 415 IPC as follows: -
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted
into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
10. The alleged recovery of products used in manufacturing gutkha,
pan masala etc., does not make out the offence of cheating as defined
under Section 415 IPC as the same does not make out a case of
deceiving any person or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing a person to
deliver any property to any person or to do any other similar act
mentioned in Section 415 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution material does
not make out the offence of cheating. 
11. The trial court proceeded to hold that the recovery of Pandit
Supari wrapper rolls and Kuber wrapper rolls indicates that the same
were being used with the intention of committing forgery and it
constitutes a case for trial for punishment of forgery under Section 467
I.P.C. Section 467 IPC is attracted when forgery is committed and not by
the mere intention of committing forgery. There is no allegation that
'Pandit Supari' or 'Kuber' are brands owned by some other person or that
those are trademarks owned by some other person or organization and
that by the use of those trade names and the revisionist has forged the

4
CRLR No. - 1633 of 2024
wrappers. Therefore, the offence of forgery punishable under Section
467 IPC is not made out. For the same reason, the offences under
Sections 468 (forgery of valuable security etc.) and 471 IPC (forgery for
the purpose of cheating) are also not made out.
12. Regarding Section 272 IPC, the trial court held that the material
recovered was being used to manufacture harmful gutkha, pan masala
and tobacco-mixed betel nut with the intention of selling the same after
committing adulteration. Section 272 IPC, as it applies to the State of
Uttr Pradesh, reads as follows: -
“272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.—
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such
article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as
food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold
as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment
which is less than imprisonment for life.”
13. The word adulteration is not defined in the Code. It means the act
of making a product impure, inferior, or unsafe by adding lower  quality
substances, harmful chemicals, or foreign materials, or by removing
valuable ingredients. 
14. Section 273 IPC contains provisions for punishment for the sale of
noxious food or drink, which reads as follows: -
“273. Sale of noxious food or drink.—
Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any
article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a
state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe
that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.”
15. The word ‘noxious’ is also not defined in the Code, but it means
poisonous or harmful. For a thing to be terms as noxious, it should be
harmful like a poison.

5
CRLR No. - 1633 of 2024
16. Although a copy of the test report has not been annexed with the
counter affidavit, the same is available on the paper book of the learned
AGA and he has provided a copy of the test report dated 10.11.2022
submitted by the Government Public Analyst Laboratory, Sector C,
Aliganj, Lucknow. This report mentions the following results: -
(i) Sample Description- Supari Tobacco Mixture.
(ii) Physical Appearance-Brown colour sample.
(iii) Label- Sample was received in ordinary plastic container having visible
mould fungus.
Result relates to the sample as received.
Sl.No.Quality characteristics Name of Method of
the test used
Results Prescribed standards
as per the Food Safety
and Standards (Food
Products. Standards
and Food Additives)
Regulations, 2011
1 Betalnut FSSAI manual 2016 Present -
2 Test for Synthetic color FSSAI manual 2016 Negative -
3 Test for Catechu FSSAI manual 2016 Positive -
4 Test for Menthol FSSAI manual 2016 Positive -
5 Microscopy FSSAI manual 2016 Tobacco
leaves
structure
are seen
6 Test for Gambier FSSAI manual 2016 Negative Negative
7 Visible Mould & FungusFSSAI manual 2016 Present Absent
Opinion- On the basis of tests performed, tobacco is present in the sample
which prohibited to use as an ingredient in food under section 2.3.4 of FSS
(Prohibition & Restriction on sales) regulations 2011 &sample also contains
visible mould and fungus which is not fit for human consumption. Hence the
sample is unsafe.
17. The Assistant Commissioner (Food) II FSSAI Hamirpur has
submitted a report dated 22.02.2023 stating that the betel nut and the
mixture of betel nut and tobacco recovered from the premises of
revisionist no.1 were found mis-branded and unsafe. Selling unsafe food
articles may be immoral, and it can even be a misconduct under some
other statutory provision, but merely because the product is unsafe, it
cannot be said that the offences under Section 272 or 273 IPC are made
out, when the analysis report does not record a finding of any
adulteration of presence of any poisonous substance.

6
CRLR No. - 1633 of 2024
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view
that the prosecution allegations and the material do not even prima facie
make out commission of the alleged offences.
19. In these circumstances, the trial court has framed the charges in a
mechanical manner without taking into consideration the essential
ingredients of each of the offences regarding which charges have been
framed against the revisionists, which vitiates the trial court's order and
renders it unsustainable in law.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.01.2024, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-I Hamirpur in Sessions Case No.1762 of 2023: State vs.
Sudesh @ Swadesh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.486 of
2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273, 120-B I.P.C. Police
Station Rath, District Hamirpur is set aside and the charges framed
against the revisionists are quashed. Resultantly, the criminal
proceedings instituted by the trial court by taking cognizance of the
offences also stand set aside.   
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
November 04, 2026
Ram.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad