Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 356 (PNJ)

Union Territory Of Chandigarh v. Pritam Singh

2008-02-07

R.S.MADAN

body2008
Judgment R. S. Madan, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. has been filed under Sec.378 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure for leave to appeal by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, against the judgment dated 5.6.2007, rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, chandigarh vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act" ). 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20.6.1985 at about 7.00 a. m. , Vireshwar singh, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity to the accused, who was having about 20 kg of cow milk for sale in Sector 25 Chandigarh, served a notice in writing on Form-VI and demanded a sample of cow milk. He purchased 660 Mls. of milk for analysis after mixing it by making payment of Rs.2.50. The milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles.18 drops of Formaline were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in a strong and thick paper. The ends of the wrapper were neatly bided and pasted with gum. A paper slip earing serial number, code number and signatures of the Local Health Authority, chandigarh, was wrapped around each sample bottle from top to bottom and pasted with gum. The thumb impression of accused was obtained on each bottle in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carried a part of the signature. After performing other formalities, one sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis along with the copy of the memorandum on from VII in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum bearing specimen impression of the seal used was also sent to the Public analyst in a sealed envelope under intimation to the Local Health Authority. The sample was taken in the presence of Arjan singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Vilage Togan, U. T. Chandigarh. The remainng two sealed samples were handed over to the Local Health Authority for safe custody. 3. As per report of Public Analyst, the sample was found deficient in Milk Solids not Fat (SNF) by 8% of the minimum prescribed standards. On finding a prima facie case against the accused-respondent, he was ordered to be summoned to face the trial. The remainng two sealed samples were handed over to the Local Health Authority for safe custody. 3. As per report of Public Analyst, the sample was found deficient in Milk Solids not Fat (SNF) by 8% of the minimum prescribed standards. On finding a prima facie case against the accused-respondent, he was ordered to be summoned to face the trial. Initially the case was adjourned to for precharge evidence but order regarding mode of trial was not passed. Thereafter, the proceedings of the case were stayed by this court and after the stay was vacated the present case was ordered to be tried as a warrant trial vide order dated 15.02.2007. 4. In the pre-charge evidence, PW1 Food inspector Vireshwar Singh was examined by the complainant. After hearing on the point of charge, the accused-respondent was charged for the commission of offence under Sec.7 (i) of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The accused-respondent again cross-examined PW1 Vireshwar Singh and also examined Avinash Singh as PW2. Thereafter, the complainant closed the evidence. 6. Incriminating evidence appearing against the accused-respondent was put to him in his statements under Sec.313 cr. P. C. , after the close of prosecution evidence. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. The respondent, however, led no evidence in his defence. 7. On conclusion of trial, learned trial court acquitted the accused on three grounds; firstly that the milk was not made homogeneous before drawing the sample; secondly non-furnishing of report under sec. 13 (2) of the Act and last but not the least, the sample was found to contain 6.6% fat against the required 4% fat and Solids not Fat were 7.8% against 8.5% as per report of the chemical examiner, Ex. PD. 8. While appearing as PW1, Vireshwar singh has deposed that he had properly mixed the entire contents of milk with the help of a long handle stick clock-wise and anti clock-wise. But in the complaint, Ex. PE, and in the spot memo. , Ex. PC, he has not mentioned that he has purchased the sample after stirring it with a long handle stick clock-wise and anti clock-wise. He has also admitted that this fact was not deposed in the previous statement. But in the complaint, Ex. PE, and in the spot memo. , Ex. PC, he has not mentioned that he has purchased the sample after stirring it with a long handle stick clock-wise and anti clock-wise. He has also admitted that this fact was not deposed in the previous statement. Thus, the trial court has rightly disbelieved his testimony and held the same an afterthought. 9. To prove that the report of the Public analyst was supplied to the accused-respondent, the complainant examined PW2 avinash Singh. In his testimony, he only deposed about the sending of copies of the report to the accused along with other documents at his given address. The postal receipts produced nowhere disclose the address of the accused. The trial court has also rightly held about the non-supplying of report under Sec.13 (2) of the Act and other documents to the accused which are otherwise mandatory in nature. The registered letters have not been received back. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that the letters were received by the accused-respondent. 10. Another reason that finds favour with the trial court in acquitting the accused is that the cow milk should contain 4% fat whereas the sample was found to contain 6.6%. As per report SNF were found to be 7.8% against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. PW1 also admitted in his cross-examination that when the milk was being carried in a drum on a bicycle the fat contents in it accumulate at the top and the SNF goes downwards. The possibility that the marginal deficiency in SNF was due to non-stirring the milk before taking the sample could not be ruled put. Another drawback with the prosecution case is that the complaint, Ex. PE, was not signed by anybody. 11. After agreeing with the reasons recorded by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, this court finds no merit in this application, therefore, the leave to appeal is declined. Appeal declined.