Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1745 (PNJ)

Jarnail Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-25

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.1995, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.07.1993, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, convicting him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentencing him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. On 19.04.1991, at about 8 a.m. Manoj Kumar Food Inspector, intercepted Jarnail Singh, who was carrying 50 kg of milk for sale. After stirring the milk in the drum, he purchased 750 ml of cows milk for a sum of Rs. 3.74 from him. Notice in form No. VI as prescribed was also served. Thereafter, the sample milk was also stirred and made homogeneous. Then said milk sample was put in three dry and clean bottles in equal quantity. 20 drops of formaline were added in each bottle as preservative and the bottles were stoppered tightly and wrapped in a paper separately. Signatory chit issued by the Local Health Authority was pasted on the wrapper of each part of the sample. Signatures of the witnesses were also obtained on each part of the sample. The sample was sent to the public Analyst, who vide his report Ex. PG observed as under: Milk Fat 0.2% Milk Solids 6.1% Thus, the sample was found to be deficient in milk fat by 95% and solids not fat by 28%. 3 After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and charged. To substantiate the charge, witnesses were recalled for cross- examination. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing again him. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction and the appeal was also dismissed. I have heard Mr. R.N. Moudgil, Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab and have perused the records of the case. 4. As regards the first argument that having followed a procedure of a warrant case, the trial has been rendered as void ab initio whereas it should have been tried as summons case. Having given my thoughtful consideration to these contentions, I do not find merit in the same. 4. As regards the first argument that having followed a procedure of a warrant case, the trial has been rendered as void ab initio whereas it should have been tried as summons case. Having given my thoughtful consideration to these contentions, I do not find merit in the same. The irregularity as committed by the trial Court has not caused any prejudice to the accused rather the sufficient opportunity has been given to the accused to explain his case, therefore, the defect in procedure was curable under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment in case Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana 1991 Crl.L.J. 2481 which is based on Apex Court judgment in case Gopal Dass v. State of Assam. AIR 1961 SC 986 wherein it was observed as under : "The trial of a summon case as a warrant case is merely an irregularity and no prejudice has been caused to the accused. Thus, the accused is not entitled to acquittal only for an irregularity committed by the Trial Court and this irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings." 5. As regards, the other argument that the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of the sole witness, the trial Court has again dealt with the point and has rightly relied upon Apex Court Judgment in case State of U.P. v. Hanif, 1992(3) RCR(Criminal) 212 : AIR 1992 SC 1121, wherein it was observed as under : "It is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. The provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act are enacted to safeguard against any possible allegations of excess or resort to unfair means by the Food Inspector. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, can be relied upon for proving that the samples were taken as required by law." So far as the stirring of the sample is concerned, Manoj Kumar, Food Inspector while appearing as PW1, categorically stated that the milk was stirred with the help of measuring pan which was dry and clean before the same was purchased. Even Dr. R.K. Jindal PW4 stated that before purchasing the milk it was mixed and made homogeneous with the help of measuring pan. Thus, no defect was found in taking of the sample. Even Dr. R.K. Jindal PW4 stated that before purchasing the milk it was mixed and made homogeneous with the help of measuring pan. Thus, no defect was found in taking of the sample. I have also examined the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The same is also shorn of any defect as the report of public Analyst Ex. PG was put to the accused. Since, both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings with regard to the fact that the sample was found to be proved deficient in milk fat by 95% and in milk solids not fat by 28% and the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity which may be uncurable, warranting interference by this Court, therefore, I hasten to interfere with the same. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.