Delhi District Court
Food Inspector vs . 1. Shri Puran Mal Gupta on 30 October, 2012
::1::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MOHINDER VIRAT,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 1888/09
Food Inspector Vs. 1. Shri Puran Mal Gupta
Department of PFA S/o Shri Badri Parsad
Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Gupta Dairy
A20, Lawrence Road Shop No. 33,
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Nehru Bazar, Paharganj,
New Delhi55.
R/o 57 H, Gali No. 2, Than Singh
Nagar, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi05.
J U D G M E N T
Serial number of the case : 1888/09
Date of the commission of the offence : 05.06.2009
Date of filing of the complaint : 24.07.2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, F.I.
Offence complained of or proved : S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m)
of PFA Act 1954,
punishable U/s 16 (1) (a),
r/w S. 7 of PFA Act 1954.
Plea of the accused :Pleaded no guilty.
Final order : Acquitted.
Arguments heard on : 30.10.2012.
Judgment announced on :30.10.2012
CC No. 1888/09 Page 1 of 6
::2::
Brief Statement of reasons for such decision
1. The present complaint has been filed on 24.07.2009 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta against the above said accused. It is stated in the complaint that on 05.06.2009 at about 2:00 PM, FI Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta lifted a sample of Curd of Toned Milk, a food article for analysis from accused Puran Mal Gupta who was found conducting the business at New Gupta Dairy, Shop No. 33, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi55. The sample consisted of 600 gms of Curd of Toned Milk, taken from an open Kunda after properly homogenizing the entire quantity of the Curd in a clean and dry jug with the help of a clean and dry Mathani by rotating Mathani in all possible directions. The sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Sh. A.K. Verma, SDM / LHA. The FI divided the sample commodity then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three separate clean and dry glass bottles. The shop in question was having a declaration that Curd of Toned Milk is sold here. 20 drops of Formalin were added in each sample bottle and thereafter, each sample bottle was separately packed, fastened and sealed as per the requirements. The vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slips and on the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice was given to the accused and price was paid to him. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. Other statutory documents were prepared CC No. 1888/09 Page 2 of 6 ::3::
at the spot and the signatures of the accused were obtained thereupon. Rest of the procedural formalities were completed according to PFA Act & Rules.
2. The complaint further contains that one counterpart of the sample was sent to the PA, Delhi in intact condition and the remaining two intact counterparts were deposited with the LHA. The PA analysed and opined the sample not conforming to the standards because milk solids not fat was less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5%.
3. During investigations, accused Puran Mal Gupta was found to be VendorcumProprietor of the Dairy in question and as such he was responsible and person incharge for conducting its day to day business. After the conclusion of the investigation entire case file including the statutory documents were sent to the Director PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the PFA Act.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 24.07.2009. He appeared in the due course and moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 to get the second counterpart of the sample analyzed from CFLPune. The second sample counterpart of the same sample was sent CC No. 1888/09 Page 3 of 6 ::4::
to the Director CFLPune for analysis. The Director CFL furnished his Report vide Certificate No. CFL/228/402/2009, dated 28.08.2009 and opined that "the sample contains Milk fat less than 3.0% & hence does not conform to the standards of Curd prepared from Toned Milk as per PFA Rules 1955 as per tests performed.
5. Notice for the violation of Provision of S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act 1954, punishable U/s 16(1) (a), r/w S.7 of the Act of 1954 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined two witnesses namely Sh. M.K. Gupta, Food Inspector (PW1) and Shri Siya Ram, Field Assistant (PW2).
7. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded on 02.07.2012, whereby, he claimed himself to be innocent and opted not to lead DE and hence, the DE stood closed on the same day.
8. I have gone through the entire judicial record and heard the Ld. SPP for the Complainant as well as Ld. counsel for the accused. CC No. 1888/09 Page 4 of 6
::5::
9. The prosecution against the accused was launched on the basis of the PA's Report dated 30.06.2009. It reveals that the sample of Curd of Toned Milk was found not conforming to the standards as 'Milk solids not fat' was found less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5%. However, when the second counterpart of the same sample was got analysed there at CFLPune, the Director CFL gave his opinion totally different to the PA's opinion. Here, the given sample counterpart was adjudged deficient in respect of 'milk fat', which was found present to the tune of 2.53% against the requirement of not less than 3.0%.
11. During the course of arguments, Ld. SPP insisted upon the findings given by the respective Experts i.e. PA and the Director CFL and pressed for holding the accused guilty of the accusations leveled against him. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out towards the divergence of opinion in the respective results of both the Analysists.
12. Now, appreciating the material on record in the light of respective submissions made on behalf of both the parties, the first and the foremost thing which requires to be looked into, is the two Reports given by Experts, analysing the respective counterparts. Perusal of the Report of PA makes it clear that the given sample counterpart had been adjudged deficient in CC No. 1888/09 Page 5 of 6 ::6::
respect of 'milk solids not fat'. However, the second counterpart of the same sample when analysed there at CFL Pune, was found deficient in respect of 'milk fat'. Both Reports are totally contradictory to each other. The accused deserves to be given the benefit thereof. Accordingly, he is hereby acquitted of the charges, leveled against him.
File be consigned to records after due compliance Announced in the open Court (MOHINDER VIRAT) on 30 October 2012 th ACMMII/PHC/ND/30.10.2012 CC No. 1888/09 Page 6 of 6