Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 192 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2000-02-16

A.S.GARG

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. On 11.10.1986 at about 8 A.M., Ashok Kumar petitioner, a milk vender, was allegedly intercepted by Government Food Inspector Kali Ram, PW.1 in the presence of Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, PW.2 and Rajinder Kumar, who himself was also a tea vendor, and was found in possession of about 60 Kgs. of cows milk contained in two drums meant for sale. After disclosing his identity and serving notice Ex.PA on the prescribed form, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cows milk for a sum of Rs. 1.80 paise vide receipt Ex.PB. The sample milk was divided into three equal parts and two drops of 40 per cent formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in a strong thick paper. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with copies of memorandum in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Jind. Ex.PD is the report of the Public Analyst, who declared the sample as adultered he milk solids not fat was 8 per cent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed in the Court by the Goverment Food Inspector and the petitioner was put to trial under Section 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. On the testimony of Kali Ram, PW. 1, the Government Food Inspector and Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, PW.2 and the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PD, the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, in appeal the sentences of imprisonment was reduced from nine months to six months whereas the sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, in appeal the sentences of imprisonment was reduced from nine months to six months whereas the sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The alleged independent witness, who joined the investigation of the case i.e. Rajinder Kumar appeared as DW.1 and stated that in fact the sample was not taken by the Food Inspector or the Medical Officer and rather only a peon conducted the sampling. Another sample bottle was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who submitted his report Ex.PF. 4. After going through the statements of Government Food Inspector Kali Ram, PW.1 and Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, PW.2, it appears that the sample was not taken from the petitioner in the given manner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner throughout has been that the milk in the drum from which the sample was taken was not stirred properly. The learned counsel also urged that there was no such mention in the sample memo Ex.PC. There is, however, a mention about it in the complaint Ex.PE. The Government Food Inspector as well as the Medical Officer have stated that the milk in the drum was stirred before the sample milk was taken. The learned counsel has vehemently urged that such a version of the witnesses has been an afterthought. The main argument of the learned counsel comes to be that if the milk had been stirred, the standard of milk as found and reported not only by the Public Anyalyst but also by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, would not have been so negligible and insignificant that the standard of the milk fat was only found deficient by the Public Analyst as 0.4 per cent, while that by the Central Food Laboratgory as 0.3 per cent. He urged that the addition of water in the milk or adulteration in any other manner would not be conducted in such a marginal manner. The standard found deficient is only the "criminus minimus" and such an insignificant deficiency could only be possible when the milk in the drum is no stirred as a result of which the milk is not made homogeneous and such a minor discrepancy can result. The standard found deficient is only the "criminus minimus" and such an insignificant deficiency could only be possible when the milk in the drum is no stirred as a result of which the milk is not made homogeneous and such a minor discrepancy can result. It was also argued that the adulteration of such a minor quantity would not in any way profitable to the milk vendor. Such a minor deficiency may occur because of various other reasons also. The learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State has urged that the reports of the Public Analyst and that of the Central Food Laboratory have to be taken as they are. However, such reports cannot be read in an abstract manner. They are subject to other circumstances as in the case in hand explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the milk might not have been made homogeneous and also the other factors to co-relate marginal deficiency and non-compliance of the other conditions of sampling. Hence the benefit of doubt in such circumstances must go to the petitioner so that a substantial justice is the outcome of the trial, rather than to convict a doubtful case. Hence the revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted.