Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 935 (PNJ)

Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana

2003-07-11

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2003
JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.1989 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who convicted the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 1-1/2 months. The verdict of the trial court was upheld by the appellate Court, in its entirety, and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Feeling aggrieved again the verdict of the Appellant Court, petitioner has filed this revision. 3. Stated briefly, the prosecution story is that on 25.4.1985, at 9.30 A.M., Food Inspector B.C. Verma, inspected the business premises of the petitioner, under the supervision of Dr. A.K. Gupta, Medical Officer. The petitioner was found in possession of 14 Kg Laddus, made of Suji, for public sale. After disclosing his intention to take sample of Laddus by issuing notice Ex.PA to the petitioner, in the presence of Dinesh Kumar PW, the Food Inspector purchased 700 grams of Laddus, as a sample, on payment of Rs. 7/-, from the petitioner, against receipt Ex.PB. Laddus so purchased, were mixed, made uniform, divided into three equal parts, and put into three dry and clean bottles, which were separately sealed according to rules. One such bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two were entrusted to the Local Health Authority, Palwal, for safe custody. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst, Ex.PF, sample was found to be adulterated as it contained unpermitted yellow basic coal tar dye. The petitioner was duly informed about the result of analysis of the sample and a copy of report of Public Analyst was sent to him. Thereafter, the Food Inspector filed complaint against him in court. 4. Learned trial court recorded the statements of Food Inspector B.C. Verma (PW1), Raj Kumar Verma (PW2), Dr. S.M. Bagga (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW4), in prosecution evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner disputed the correctness of the incriminating evidence appearing on record against him. No evidence was led in defence. 5. On completion of trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, as detailed above. S.M. Bagga (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW4), in prosecution evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner disputed the correctness of the incriminating evidence appearing on record against him. No evidence was led in defence. 5. On completion of trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, as detailed above. Appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court was also dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant General, Haryana, and also carefully gone through the trial court record. 7. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the prosecution case should have been thrown out by the trial court on account of the discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses and the facts given in the complaint. He pointed out that as per the statements of PW1 and PW4, the quantity of Laddus purchased was 700 gms, whereas in the complaint, this quantity had been mentioned as 900 gms. Anther discrepancy pointed out by him was that in examination-in-chief, the complainant (PW1) had stated that the sample of Laddus was made homogeneous on a piece of paper, whereas in his cross-examination, he deposed that the mixing was done on a piece of newspaper. While replying, learned Assistant Advocate General rightly pointed out that the said two discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner can, by no method of interpretation, be termed as material discrepancies and with the passage of time, memory of witnesses is likely to fade regarding the minute details of what had happened in their presence. 8. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the bottles in which three parts of the sample were put had not been sealed properly and, therefore, it could not be said that the sample had remained intact till the time it was analysed. But, he could not point out as to on what basis he had put forward this contention. Learned Assistant Advocate General, on the other hand, pointed out that it was clearly mentioned in the complaint that the bottles were properly stoppered, sealed and labelled, as per the rules. This fact is also clear from the testimony of the complainant and one more witness, Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW4). 9. Learned Assistant Advocate General, on the other hand, pointed out that it was clearly mentioned in the complaint that the bottles were properly stoppered, sealed and labelled, as per the rules. This fact is also clear from the testimony of the complainant and one more witness, Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW4). 9. Lastly, it was contended that the report of public analyst does not show that the colouring material found in the sample was injurious to health and as such, he argued, it could not be said that the petitioner had committed offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. There is no merit in this contention even. It was clearly held by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 1951-80 Supreme Court on Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 556, that "the adding of any colouring material has been prohibited under the Act and the Rules because it was harmful to human health and, therefore, non-mentioning in the report of the Public Analyst that the alleged colouring material in the sample was injurious to health was not fatal to the prosecution case in any way." 10. No other argument was addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. The judgment recorded by the learned Appellate Court is, thus, well reasoned and based on legal evidence. As such, the same is upheld and the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.