Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

24 vs Food Inspector on 6 December, 2012

                                       -1-

                     IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
                         ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
                      PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 66/12

Ms. Ekta Subba
D/o Sh. Roop Kishor Subba
Proprietor M/s Sikkim Momo King,
12UB, Banglow Road, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi - 110007

Also at :

24, New Aruna Nagar,
Majnu Ka Tila,
Delhi - 110054.                                        ... Petitioner

                                     Versus

Food Inspector
Directorate of PFA,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A-20, Lawrence Road, Indl. Area,
Delhi - 110035                                         ... Respondent


Date of institution of the revision              :     19.10.2012
Date of arguments and disposal                   :     06.12.2012

      Revision u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
          against the impugned order of Ld. ACMM
                      dated 07.09.2012

ORDER

06.12.2012 1.0 Revisionist has challenged the order of Ld. ACMM-II, dated 07.09.2012 whereby charge against the revisionist was Cri. Revision No.66/12 Page No. 1 of 4 Ekta Subba v. Food Inspector -2- framed u/s 2(i-a) (a) (b) (f) & (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA" ); punishable u/s 16(1A), r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act and Sec. 14A punishable under Section 16(1C) of PFA.

2.0 Briefly stating the facts as per record are that the shop of the revisionist was inspected by the Food Inspector on 06.10.2008. The sample consisting 1500 gms of Rice (a food article ready for use) from an open plastic bag (bearing no label or declaration), was purchased by Food Inspector Dharamvir Singh and same was sent for analysis as per PFA Act and Rules. The Public Analyst analyzed the sample and vide report dated 24.10.2008 found the same to be adulterated in view of it being infested with living and dead insects. On which, a complaint by the Food Inspector (PFA), Government of NCT of Delhi, was filed against the revisionist u/s 16 of PFA Act, 1954. Ld. ACMM-II after recording pre-charge evidence and hearing both the sides framed the charge against the revisionist, vide order dated 07.09.2012, which is under challenge before this Court .

3.0 The revisionist has challenged the impugned order and has pleaded that Ld. ACMM-II framed the charge ignoring the following arguments raised by her :-

(i) The Food Inspector / officers accompanying him did not invite general public to join the process;

(ii) Modus operandi adopted by the said officials was illegal.

Ekta Subba v. Food Inspector -3-

(iii) The Public Analyst's report was not in accordance with the guidelines given under item No. A.18.06.04;

(iv) The report of the Public Analyst was stereotype;

(v) Ld. ACMM erred in considering that the total rice was divided into three equal parts consisting of 500 gms each; the Public Analyst should have given the percentage of insects in relation of 500 gms;

(vi) Ld. ACMM did not appreciate the fact that Public Analyst 's report is silent on the aspect that the rice was unfit for human consumption.

4.0 Ld. Special Prosecutor on behalf of the Department, on the other hand, argued that the sample was collected, sent for analysis and analyzed as per Rules. The same was found to be infested with living and dead insects; same amounts to adulteration within the meaning of definition of the word "adulterated" in Section 2(i-a) (a) (b) (f) & (m) of PFA Act punishable u/s 16(1A), r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act. The Ld. ACMM after being duly satisfied with the material on record / violations, rightly framed the charge against the revisionist.

5.0 I have heard both the sides and have perused the record carefully.

6.0 On perusal of the record it is noted that the Ld. ACMM had recorded pre-summoning evidence; the respondent had examined one witness FI D. V. Singh, who was duly cross-

Ekta Subba v. Food Inspector -4- examined, by the revisionist. Perusal of report of Smt. Mohini Srivastava, Public Analyst, dated 24.10.2008, reveals that the Public Analyst has opined that "sample is adulterated because it is infested with living and dead insects".

6.1 Section 2(f) of P.F.A specifically mentions that a food article shall be deemed to be adulterated if it is "insect infested, or is otherwise unfit for human consumption". In view of the same, I find no substance in revisionist's argument that in absence of specific opinion of the Public Analyst that the sample was unfit for human consumption, the rice could not have been said to be adulterated merely because living and dead insects were found in it.

6.2 In view of the above and material on record, there does not appear to be any infirmity in prima facie opinion formed by ld. A.C.M.M. in the matter about violation of the relevant provisions of P.F.A against the revisionist.

7.0 For the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality in impugned order framing charge against the revisionist. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is clarified that any opinion expressed in this order shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order.

Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in open Court                            (Poonam A. Bamba)
Date : 06th December, 2012                         ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi

Cri. Revision No.66/12                                          Page No. 4 of 4
Ekta Subba v. Food Inspector