Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 634 (PNJ)

Shiv Ram v. State Of Haryana

2005-05-23

AMAR DUTT

body2005
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, by which the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, on 9.4.1999 was upheld and the appeal dismissed. 2. Shiv Ram petitioner was charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, in relation to the samples taken from the 30 litres of cows milk, which he was carrying for public sale in two cans on 11.6.1988. The samples were taken by Shri S.L. Anand, Government Food Inspector, Karnal, when he intercepted Shiv Ram at Kunjpura Road, Karnal in the presence of Dr. B.S. Chaudhary. Before taking the sample, the Food Inspector had after stirring and mixing the contents of the can properly so as to ensure that the contents of the can had been made uniform for analysis, purchased 660 M.L. of cows milk for Rs. 3/- vide receipt Ex. PB. According to the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, the same had been found adulterated as the percentage of milk solids not fat were found to be 7 per cent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard and, consequently, the complaint Ex. PE was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. 3. The petitioner had moved the trial Court through an application seeking to avail his right under Section 13(2) of the Act, whereafter one of the three samples was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, for analysis and vide report Ex. PF the Director had opined that the milk fat was 3.85 per cent as against the minimum prescribed standard of 4 per cent. 4. After framing of the charge, the prosecution had examined S.L. Anand PW-1, Baldev Raj PW-2 and Dr. B.S. Chaudhary PW-3 and when the incriminating circumstances were put to the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the circumstances and asserted that he was innocent but in defence did not lead any evidence. 5. The trial Court had, after hearing arguments, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 5. The trial Court had, after hearing arguments, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six 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 1-1/2 months. In appeal, the appellate Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, it had been submitted that as the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana stands superseded by the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore who had found only 0.15 per cent variation, which, according to him, was marginal and may be due to experimental tolerances and on account of this he had expressed the following opinion :- "However, I am of the considered opinion that as the deviation in milk fat content by 0.15% is marginal and falls within the experimental tolerance and other parameters being well within the specified limits, the sample under reference may be deemed to conform to the standard laid down for cows milk under the provisions of PFA Act and Rules thereof." the petitioner should be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 8 On behalf of the State, it was urged that the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that marginal deviation from the prescribed standard would not per se entitle the petitioner to any relief. 9. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore clearly shows that there was a deficiency though marginal in the percentage of milk fats that is found in the sample that was sent to the Laboratory. Having given this finding, it was not within the powers of the person analysing the sample to recommend that the deficiency is marginal and falls within the specified limits and therefore, the sample under reference may be deemed to conform to the standard laid down under the provisions of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pin point in the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, limits of variation which according to the Legislature were permissible. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pin point in the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, limits of variation which according to the Legislature were permissible. 10. In view of this position, the deficiency, howsoever small would necessarily enable the prosecution to invoke the penal provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The recommendations made by the Director, Central Food Laboratory cannot be relied upon by the Court of law to grant any relief to the petitioner. 11. On merits, the Courts below have concurrently found no fault with the procedure adopted by any member of the raiding party and, therefore, any objection that the petitioner may have against the same would be unsustainable. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that the findings given by the Lower Appellate Court for rejecting the challenge held out before it to the view of the trial Court cannot be faulted with and have to be upheld. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.