AT CHANDIGARH v. Govt. Food Inspector & Anr.

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and Mr. C.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana *****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment and Order dated 11.01.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, vide which, the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ months. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment and Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2003 2 Order dated 11.01.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide Order dated 02.06.2003. The facts as recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide Order dated 11.01.2001, are that “Raj Kumar, Government Food Inspector (here-in-after referred to as GFI) authorised to take the samples of food stuff from their vendors, with a view to have them analysed from the Public Analyst, intercepted Balram (here- in-after referred to as the accused) at Janta Band Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, with two drums containing 30 kilograms of cow milk for public sale. After disclosing to him his identity that he was Government Food Inspector, authorised to seize sample of food-stuff, he expressed his intention to purchase 750 ml. of cow milk from him on payment of necessary price through notice Ex. PA which was thumb marked by the accused. At that time, Dr. Sudhir Khurana, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad was with him. Thereafter, the milk was thoroughly stirred and homogenized. The accused supplied him 750 mls. cow milk on receipt of Rs.4.50 ps. through receipt Ex.PB which was thumb marked by him. The GFI divided the milk into three equal parts and put it into three dry and clean bottles. He put 20 drops formaline 40 each in each bottle as preservative. The bottles were stopped, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong thick paper which was secured by means of paper strips bearing code number and twine. Bottles were sealed. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh and other sealed bottles were handed over to the Local Health Authority in his office. Copy of memorandum and specimen impression of seal used was sent to the Public Analyst Chandigarh separately by registered post. The proceedings taken at the spot were recorded in memo Ex. PC by the GFI which was attested by Dr. Sudhir Khurana. The Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh, who analysed the sample of milk found, vide report exhibit PE that the milk fat in Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2003 3 the sample was deficient by margin of 15% while the milk solids not fat was deficient by 47% against the prescribed standard. After the receipt of the Public Analyst by the LHA, the complaint was instituted by Raj Kumar, GFI under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here-in-after referred to as the Act).” While dismissing the appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, took up each of the three arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and after dealing with them effectively, held as under :- (a) If the evidence of the Food Inspector is reliable and trustworthy and supported the Public Analyst Report, it has no bar for believing the evidence of Food Inspector in the absence of exmination of independent mediator. Corroboration must be insisted only if the evidence of Food Inspector is full of contradictions. This is not such a case. So, the contention raised in this regard on behalf of the appellant-accused is devoid of merit. (b) Although, it has not come in their evidence that the milk was stirred clockwise and anti-clockwise, it does not mean that the milk was not properly mixed before lifting the sample. Even otherwise, it does not lie in the mouth of the accused to say that the sample taken by Government Food Inspector was not representative sample of the contents of the drum as it is proved from the report of Public Analyst Ex.PE that sample of milk was deficient in milk solids not fat by 47% of the minimum standards. So, the plea taken by the accused in this regard is devoid of merit. (c) It is evident from the perusal of documents Ex. PA to Ex.PC that the same were thumb marked by the accused in the presence of Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2003 4 PW1 Raj Kumar and PW3 Dr. Sudhir Khurana. At that time, no note was given by him that the milk being carried by him in two drums was meant for public sale. Even he did not show any invitation card to prove the marriage of the sister with Satish to be performed on 25.06.1992. Though, the accused led some oral evidence to show that he was falsely implicated in this case but in such type of cases, it is not difficult to procure oral evidence. Then, there is nothing on the record to show that as to why the official witnesses are deposing against the accused and whether they have any enmity against him.” Nothing has been pointed out which may require interference in the well reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below. The present revision is, accordingly, dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad is upheld. However, the petitioner was only 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence. It is further stated that the petitioner has already undergone 1½ months. The petitioner is facing litigation since 1992. He has already undergone sufficient mental harassment. He is on bail. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. As a result, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained but taking into account that he is the sole bread-winner of his family, he should be given appropriate chance to reform himself. As such, the petition is dismissed and the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of six months within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. The cost of Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2003 5 litigation is quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State within three months from today, failing which the same shall be recovered as fine.

17.03.2010 gurpreet The revision petition is dismissed with above modification. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Judge