Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 440 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Subash Chand

2004-04-08

AMAR DUTT

body2004
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The State of Punjab is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.4.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, by which the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondent under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was set aside and the respondent acquitted of the charge framed against him. 2. According to the complaint filed by Dr. R.K. Jindal, Government Food Inspector, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, on 30th of August, 1990, a sample of Sarson oil was seized from the premises of M/s Subash Karyana Store, Kurali Road, Ropar, a shop owned by Subash Chand respondent after purchasing 600 grams of Sarson oil on payment of Rs. 18/-, out of 5 Kgs. container. The sample was sealed in dry, clean bottles in accordance with the procedure and the rules framed under the Act. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and after receipt of the report Ex. PF, according to which the contents of the sample contained suspended matter settled at the bottom whereas Sarson oil should be clear and free from such suspended matter, and other tests being in conformity with the prescribed standard, the complaint was filed. 3. The trial Magistrate had followed the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases and thereafter convicted the respondent under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 4. Before the Additional Sessions Judge this judgment was assailed on three grounds :- (a) that the procedure applicable to a warrant case, has been followed during the trial without passing an order as envisaged under Section 16-A of the Act; (b) that the report of the Public Analyst was deficient; and (c) that the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act have not been followed by the Food Inspector without reasonable cause. 5. The aforesaid three submissions found favour with the Additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was accepted as indicated hereinbefore. Hence, the present appeal against acquittal. 6. I have heard Mr. J.S. Bedi, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. 5. The aforesaid three submissions found favour with the Additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was accepted as indicated hereinbefore. Hence, the present appeal against acquittal. 6. I have heard Mr. J.S. Bedi, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Robin Dutt, appearing on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 7. In the present case, the trial had started on 30th of August, 1990 and more than two years and seven months had elapsed after the decision that the appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge. A perusal of the record shows that no order had been passed by the trial Court in terms of proviso to Section 16A of the Act, which indicates that he was not going to try the offence summarily. In the absence of such an order, the appellate Court had rightly accepted the first objection that was raised before it and while doing so relied upon the observations contained in Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) F.A.C. 110, Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) F.A.C. 131, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) F.A.C. 319 and Ram Bhaj v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) F.A.C. 62. 8. In relation to the report of the Public Analyst, as already indicated, after finding the sample conforming to all other prescribed standard, the report had mentioned the following defect :- "Contents of the sample contained suspended matter settled at the bottom whereas Sarson oil should be clear and free from suspended matter." 9. The appellate Court had relied upon M.C. Amritsar v. Arjan Singh, 1973 Crl. Law Journal 721, State of Maharashtra v. Sai Dyaneshwar Vitthal Vada De and others, 1990(2) F.A.C. 244 and Nagar Palika Parishad Khilchipur through Food Inspector v. Rajindra Kumar, 1988(II) F.A.C. 3, for coming to the conclusion that since this defect did not indicate the extent of the percentage of suspended matter found, it was possible that the same was negligible and the provisions of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code would come into play. Mr. Bedi has not been able to successfully assail this conclusion during the arguments. In the end, the Additional Sessions Judge had also pointed out that though Dr. Mr. Bedi has not been able to successfully assail this conclusion during the arguments. In the end, the Additional Sessions Judge had also pointed out that though Dr. Jindal had stated that no one was prepared to join as witness yet his failure to indicate the identity of those persons, who had been asked to associate in the seizure, was defect which was frowned upon by the High Court in State of Punjab v. Jit Singh, 1992(1) F.A.C. 266. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are not erroneous. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.