Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1058 (BOM)

Kantilal v. State of Maharashtra

2014-04-25

A.I.S.CHEEMA

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Criminal revision Application has been filed by applicant- original accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was convicted in R.C.C. No.127/1998 on 6.11.2008 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shindkheda and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month for offence punishable under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for short) and his Criminal Appeal no.132/2008 to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule has been dismissed on 8.10.2010. 2. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under: Accused was running grocery shop “Anil Provisions” at Pashte, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. On 18.1.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. Food Inspector R.I. Jethar (hereinafter referred to as complainant P.W.1) went to the shop of accused along with Panch Ashok Sonawane. Complainant disclosed his identity and intention to draw sample. In the shop there was an open tin box containing 10 Kg. of groundnut oil, which was stored for sale. Complainant purchased 450 Gms. of groundnut oil from the accused and paid price for the same. Samples were taken of iodized salt and turmeric powder also (but case regarding those articles has not been filed and so detailed reference is not necessary). For the purchase of groundnut accused issue cash memo in his handwriting and signature. Complainant purchased the groundnut oil in clean, dry and empty stainless steel pot and divided the oil purchased into three parts in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles and duly sealed the same and labeled the same. Accused was given notice under Section 14-A of the Act. Accused disclosed on the copy of notice that the bills in respect of purchase of the food articles were not available with him. Panchanama of the incident was prepared. On 19.11.1997, the complainant prepared Form VII and one sealed packet containing one part of the sample along with memorandum in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Pune. Receipt of the Public Analyst was received. On 19.11.1997 itself sealed packet containing copy of the memorandum in Form VII and specimen impression of seal was sent to Public Analyst, Pune along with covering letter. Receipt of the same was received from the Public Analyst. Receipt of the Public Analyst was received. On 19.11.1997 itself sealed packet containing copy of the memorandum in Form VII and specimen impression of seal was sent to Public Analyst, Pune along with covering letter. Receipt of the same was received from the Public Analyst. On same day sealed packet containing remaining part of sample along with copies of memorandum in Form VII and covering letter were sent to Local Health Authority and Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Authority, Dhule. Receipt of the same was also received. Two copies of specimen impression of seal and copies of memorandum in Form VII were also sent to Local Health Authority & Assistant Commissioner. Receipt of the same was also received. Complainant received report of the Public Analyst informing that the sample did not confirm to the standards of groundnut oil as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Complainant issued notice to accused calling upon him to produce documents regarding his firm and accused sent letter in reply. Complainant moved the licensing authority and the licensing authority issued letter that the accused was not issued any license for conducting the business. Complainant, vide letter dated 23.2.1998, sent the documents to Joint Commissioner of Food & Drugs Administration, Nasik for sanction. The sanction was received and complaint came to be filed. P.W.3 Shashikant Patil on 19.9.1998 gave intimation to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act and postal acknowledgement of accused was received. Concurrent Findings 3. The complainant led evidence before charge and thereafter charge came to be framed against the accused under Section 7(i) read with (1a)(a) and Section 2(ia)(m) and Section 7(v) of the Act read with Rule 50 read with Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962 (Maharashtra Rules in short), punishable under Section 16 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and was tried. The complainant brought on record further evidence and after completion of the trial, the accused came to be convicted as above and his appeal has been dismissed as mentioned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision has been filed against concurrent findings and keeping in view the scope of revision, the consideration is whether it could be said that the judgment and orders passed are correct, legal and proper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision has been filed against concurrent findings and keeping in view the scope of revision, the consideration is whether it could be said that the judgment and orders passed are correct, legal and proper. Unless the applicant is able to show that the same is not correct, not legal or not proper, interference would not be called for. Compliance of Section 13 of the Act 5. The first question raised by the learned counsel for applicant was that there is non compliance of Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act requires that, on the institution of the prosecution against the person from whom sample of the article of food was taken, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis is required to be sent to the person informing that if the person (herein the accused) so desires, he may make an application to the Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The learned counsel for applicant referred to para 17 of the evidence of P.W.1 in support of his argument to say that the P.W.1/ Complainant Jathar admitted that he had not issued notice to the accused under Section 13 of the Act. On record there is evidence of complainant’s witness No.3 Mr. Patil. He was working as Assistant Commissioner with Local Health Authority at Dhule and he has deposed that, after the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 18.9.1998, he, on 19.9.1998 sent letter Exh.73 (copy of which is proved by complainant at Exh.52) to the complainant. This letter informed the complainant regarding the report and informed him regarding the complaint filed and also informed the applicant/ accused that if he so desires, he can make application to the Court for sending the sample of article of food kept with the Local Health Authority to the Central Food Laboratory. The evidence of complainant’s witness No.3 Mr. Patil shows that, Exh.73 was sent to the accused and the postal acknowledgement was received. The postal acknowledgement has been proved at Exh.74. C.W.3 deposed that the same bears signature of the accused. The evidence of complainant’s witness No.3 Mr. Patil shows that, Exh.73 was sent to the accused and the postal acknowledgement was received. The postal acknowledgement has been proved at Exh.74. C.W.3 deposed that the same bears signature of the accused. Cross-examination of C.W.3 does not show any challenge to sending of such letter Exh.73 (copy Exh.52) and that the acknowledgement Exh.74 bears signature of the accused. Trial Court discussed challenge raised on this count in para 32 to 34 of its judgment and the Sessions Judge has also considered the challenge raised on this count in paras 15 and 16 of its judgment. I do not find that there is any error in these reasonings and findings recorded by the courts below. There is no substance in the claim that there is non compliance of Section 13 of the Act. Stirring of Oil? 6. Another dispute raised by the learned counsel for applicant was that when the sample of oil was taken, the oil was not stirred. It was argued that, the complainant has admitted in cross-examination that he did not stir the oil. The learned counsel argued that, before the trial Court, various rulings were referred which mentioned that while taking the sample, the same should be stirred. It was argued that, this is necessary to make the sample homogeneous and to ensue that the sample represents the whole. The counsel submitted that, the trial Court ignored the rulings requiring that the sample should be stirred by on its own referring to judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Haidarali reported in 1999 FAJ 369 to record that what is required for taking sample of milk is not the requirement for taking sample of oil. If the judgment of the trial Court in para 20 is perused, it can be seen that the rulings referred by the accused were regarding drawing of sample of milk, and the trial Court reproduced portion from the judgment in the matter of Hyder Ali (supra) to observe that Food Inspector is not required to stir the entire oil before collecting the sample. This argument was raised even before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court also did not find that there was any error when the trial Court relied on the case of Hyder Ali. This argument was raised even before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court also did not find that there was any error when the trial Court relied on the case of Hyder Ali. I have gone through the judgment in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Hyder Ali, reported in 2001 (1) FAC 234. The Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court looked into the aspects of taking of sample when it is a matter of milk and the aspects required to be looked into when it is a matter of taking of sample of oil and found that nothing is pointed out to suggest that fat in oil also (like milk) settles on the top and, therefore, is required to be stirred. In the present matter, the learned counsel has not shown me any material on the basis of which it can be said that even for taking sample of oil it would be necessary to stir the groundnut oil otherwise the same would not represent the whole. I do not find that there is anything incorrect with the reasonings and findings recorded by the Courts below on this count also. Taking sample in clean, dry bottles - Rule 14 7. It has been then argued by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused that, while taking the sample, there was no compliance with Rule 14. Rule 14 requires that the samples of the food for the purposes of analysis shall be taken in clean, dry bottles or jars or any other suitable container which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance entrance of moisture, and shall be carefully sealed. The argument is that the evidence does not show that bottles in which the samples were drawn were clean and dry. Reliance has been placed on the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaskar Rajeshwar Gangshettiwar & ors., reported in 2003 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 1617. 8. If evidence of the complainant is perused, he clearly deposed (in para 2) that he purchased the said groundnut oil in a clean, dry and empty stainless steel pot and that he divided the sample into three equal parts and thereafter it was kept in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles. The panchanama (Exh. 8. If evidence of the complainant is perused, he clearly deposed (in para 2) that he purchased the said groundnut oil in a clean, dry and empty stainless steel pot and that he divided the sample into three equal parts and thereafter it was kept in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles. The panchanama (Exh. 33) proved on record also mentioned that the complainant bought the groundnut oil after it was weighed, in clean, dry and empty stainless steel pot and then the same was divided into three parts and filled in clean, dry and empty glass bottles. If the cross-examination of the complainant on this count is perused, it cannot be said that the complainant has been shattered in this regard. Trial Court dealt with challenge on this count in paras 13 to 19 of its judgment and the rulings relied on were discussed and the above judgment in the matter of “Bhaskar” was distinguished. In the matter of Bhaskar, as para 7 of the judgment would indicate, there was admission of the Food Inspector that he did not clean the weighing measure while obtaining the sample. 9. The Sessions Court also dealt with this aspect in para 13 of its judgment and found that the evidence of P.W.1 that he had taken the sample of groundnut oil in a clean dry and empty stainless steel pot and that it was divided into three equal parts and thereafter it was put in three clean dry and empty glass bottles, needs to be accepted. Having gone through the record, I find no reason to disagree with the Courts below on this count. The panchanama is also speaking on this count, and there is oral evidence of the complainant which remains unshattered in the cross-examination. Quantity of sample sent - Rule 22 10. Further challenge raised on behalf of the applicant is on the basis that, Rule 22 has been violated. Learned counsel for applicant referred to Rule 22 relating to quantity of sample which is required to be sent to Public Analyst. The rule mentioned that quantity of sample of food to be sent to Public Analyst/ Director for analysis shall be as specified in the table given in the Section. The table has two columns, one of article of food and second of “approximate” quantity to be supplied. The rule mentioned that quantity of sample of food to be sent to Public Analyst/ Director for analysis shall be as specified in the table given in the Section. The table has two columns, one of article of food and second of “approximate” quantity to be supplied. Entry No.13, which deals with Vanaspati and edible oil and fat requires that the approximate quantity should be 250 Gms. The argument is that, the evidence on record shows and it is borne out even from the panchanama that the complainant purchased only 450 Gms. of groundnut oil and divided the same in 3 parts, which means that every part was of 150 Gms. The counsel submitted that, it means that the sample sent to the Public Analyst was of less than 250 Gms. as required. The counsel relied on the case of Rajal Das Guru Namal Pamanani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1975 SC 189 . Relying on the said judgment, the counsel argued that the Supreme Court has observed that the appellant in that matter rightly contended that non compliance of the quantity to be supplied amounts to not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. 11. Firstly, the Advocate for the applicant wrongly referred to Rule 22 as was inserted vide G.S.R. 530(E), dated 29.7.2002 (w.e.f. 29.1.2003). I am concerned with incident dated 18.11.1997. Earlier Rule 22 substituted vide G.S.R. 1340, dated 7.10.1961 required the sample of edible oil to be 125 gms. The counsel for petitioner has not shown than on 18.11.1997, the quantity collected was insufficient. Secondly, the judgment relied on is of 3rd December 1974. By G.S.R. 775(E), dated 27.12.1997, Rule 22(B) was inserted in the rules, which reads as under : “22-B. Quantity of sample sent to be considered as sufficient:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22 and Rule 22-C, the quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst or the Director reports to the contrary." 12. The above rule inserted subsequent to the ruling relied on makes it clear that the quantity sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst or Director reports to the contrary. In the present matter, the report of the Public Analyst is at Exh. 42. The Public Analyst did not report that quantity received was insufficient. The above rule inserted subsequent to the ruling relied on makes it clear that the quantity sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst or Director reports to the contrary. In the present matter, the report of the Public Analyst is at Exh. 42. The Public Analyst did not report that quantity received was insufficient. As such, there is no substance in argument raised on this count. Written Consent - Section 20 13. It was then argued that, the consent order issued in the present matter did not comply with Section 20 of the Act. The argument is that, the prosecution for the offence under the Act cannot be instituted without written consent of the Central Government or State Government or a person authorized in this behalf by general or special order, by the Central Government or State Government. It was argued that, the consent order in the matter which is at Exh.49, does not show application of mind by the Joint Commissioner, Nasik Division, Food & Drug Administration. The counsel relied on the case of The state of Maharashtra Vs. Hirji Dhanji Shah reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 1828. 14. Regarding the consent order, record of the trial Court shows evidence of complainant disclosing the various steps he took for collecting the evidence. Then, he forwarded documents to the Joint Commissioner, Nasik for sanction through Assistant Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Dhule. He proved document Exh.48 in this regard and the sanction or consent order at Exh.49. Exh.49 proved by the complainant shows that the Jt. Commissioner considered steps taken by the complainant and report of the Public Analyst and recorded the fact that the sample failed the test for B.R. Read in reading Iodine value and Bellies test. Going through the record, the Joint Commissioner recorded that the sample did not confirm to the standards of groundnut oil as per the Rule. Consequently, making specific reference to the rules concerned, the Joint Commissioner gave the consent order. Going through such material on record, I find that the judgment in the matter of "Hirji Dhanji Shah" mentioned above is not of any assistance to the applicant- accused. In that matter, the consent order said that the Commissioner had considered the report of Public Analyst and came to the conclusion that it was fit case for prosecution. Going through such material on record, I find that the judgment in the matter of "Hirji Dhanji Shah" mentioned above is not of any assistance to the applicant- accused. In that matter, the consent order said that the Commissioner had considered the report of Public Analyst and came to the conclusion that it was fit case for prosecution. In such situation, it was observed that the order was lacking relevant materials as to on what point food articles had been referred to the Public Analyst, what are the materials to be considered while issuing the order etc. In the present matter, the evidence shows that there was sufficient material which was placed before the Joint Commissioner and the order disclosed application of mind. It cannot be said that, mechanical order was passed. The trial Court has considered challenge on this count in para 35 of its judgment and it did not find infirmity with the consent order. Having independently looked into the aspects, I do not find any reason to disagree with the trial Court. Other Objections 15. The learned counsel for applicant then tried to raise certain doubts. He referred to Exhs.36 and 38 wondering as to how both receipts of the Public Analyst which are of different dates, are having same number 12645. It is also argued that, complainant deposed (in para 4) that he sent sample and copy of the memorandum and specimen impression vide Exhs.35 and 37 for which receipts Exhs.36 and 38 had been proved. It was argued that, postal receipts were not proved although it was claimed that Exhs.35 and 37 were sent by registered post A.D. Evidence of complainant shows that vide Exh.35, a sample was sent. Exh.36 is receipt of Public Analyst of the sample. Vide Exh.37, copy of memorandum in Form VII and specimen impression of the seal was sent and Exh.38 is receipt of the same. Exhs.36 and 38 which are printed receipts, had different wordings. Exh.36 had printed wordings regarding receipt of sealed container in respect of the sample and Exh.38 had printed wording regarding receipt of memorandum and specimen impression. If for given cases received for analysis, while issuing different receipts, Public Analyst keeps the common number for the purpose of record or cross check, that by itself cannot be reason for creating doubts first time at the stage of revision. If for given cases received for analysis, while issuing different receipts, Public Analyst keeps the common number for the purpose of record or cross check, that by itself cannot be reason for creating doubts first time at the stage of revision. When receipts of Public Analyst are available, only because postal receipts of sending of Exhs.35 and 37 have not been filed, cannot be a reason for asking to throw out the case of prosecution. 16. Yet another dispute raised was that, postal acknowledgement (Exh.44) on record showed the address as that of “Holy Provision” whereas the name of shop of the applicant- accused was “Anil Provisions”. At the time of arguments, the counsel for applicant was unable to show from the cross-examination of complainant that signature on Exh.44 was denied by the accused. The evidence of complainant shows that, he had sent letter Exh.43 to the applicant- accused seeking information regarding his firm and Exh.44 is acknowledgement of that letter. The argument of the counsel loses significance when the further evidence of the complainant is seen that the accused replied to the letter Exh.43, vide his letter Exh.47, which showed not only the applicant-accused admitting that complainant bought the groundnut oil from him on 18.11.1997 but also stating that he did not have bill showing his own purchase. 17. The other argument on behalf of the applicant that in Exh.34 the memorandum to Public Analyst Form VII regarding date and place of collection mentioned only the name of village and not the shop of the applicant- accused needs to be referred and ignored as there is no substance in this argument. The format did not require address as such to be given. Nature of Trial 18. It was then argued that, the proceedings in the trial Court were conducted as a Regular Trial and not summary trial as reuired by Section 16-A. Reliance is placed on the case of Devakakonda Ramesh Vs. The State of A.P., through Food Inspector, Adilabad, reported in 2003 (1) FAC 245. In that matter, there was non compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act and it was observed by the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the petitioner-accused could not be deprived of a speedy trial by the mistake of the Magistrate and hence the trial was vitiated. In that matter, there was non compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act and it was observed by the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the petitioner-accused could not be deprived of a speedy trial by the mistake of the Magistrate and hence the trial was vitiated. I find that, there is no doubt that Section 16-A provides that the Court has power to try the cases summarily. However, no grievance was made in the trial Court or in the appellate Court that because the case was being tried as per warrant trial procedure, the applicant-accused is suffering. In fact, procedure under the warrant trial is more elaborate and gives better opportunity. Had it been a case that the law required warrant trial procedure to be adopted, and summary procedure was adopted, it could be said that the accused is prejudiced. However, the same could not be in vice versa condition. Only because warrant trial procedure was adopted, the accused cannot be said to be prejudiced and it cannot be held that proceedings get vitiated and need to be thrown out. The Act is for public health and offences of Food Adulteration are serious offences. There is need to balance justice between society at large and accused. Accused in such matters cannot be allowed to cling to technicalities just to escape, without prejudice as such being shown on record. Conclusion 19. For reasons mentioned above, there is no substance in this revision application. The learned counsel for applicant argued in the alternative that the applicant was earlier in custody for about one and half month and the matter was pending for long and so leniency may be shown. The offence is against public health. Oil is basic ingredient in cooking and its adulteration severely affects health of public. No leniency is called for. 20. There is no substance in the revision application. The revision application is rejected. The applicant- accused shall surrender to his bail bonds.