Delhi District Court
Da vs . Sunder Lal Etc. Page 1 Of 6 on 16 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 155/11
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
1.Rajesh Kumar s/o Ram Kumar M/s Aarya Organic Foods and Ayurvedic Industries Pvt. Ltd. IP36, Khasra No. 84 & 87, Raipur Sarkari Audhyogic Kshetra, Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, Uttrakhand .....Nominee of manufacturing firm
2. M/s Aarya Organic Foods and Ayurvedic Industries Pvt. Ltd. IP36, Khasra No. 84 & 87, Raipur Sarkari Audhyogic Kshetra, Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, Uttrakhand Having registered office at:
504, Pratap Chabmer2, Sarwaswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi .............Manufacturing firm CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 1 of 6 Serial number of the case : 155/11 Date of the commission of the offence : 28.04.2011 Date of filing of the complaint : 11.07.2011 Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ram Pratap Singh, Food Inspector Offence complained of or proved : Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act 1954, punishable U/s 16(1) (a) r/w section 7 of the PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Both accused acquitted Arguments heard on : 16.02.2015 Judgment announced on : 16.02.2015 Brief facts of the case
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2011 at about 03.30 a.m. Food Inspector V.P.S. Choudhary and Food Inspector Saurabh Sharma under the supervision and directions of SDM /LHA Sh. R.K. Ahuja were present at MCD Toll Tax Apsara Border, Seemapuri, Delhi where they intercepted one milk van bearing no.
UA07C8274 which was driven by Sunder Lal (accused no. 1 as per the original complaint, since expired and proceedings against him were abated vide orders dated 02.08.2013 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court) and the van was found carrying pasteurized full cream milk in sealed poly packs of 500 ML each bearing identical label declaration. In compliance of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the Food Inspector CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 2 of 6 collected / purchased the sample of pasteurized full cream milk from accused Sunder Lal.
2. During the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Sunder Lal was carrying the sampled food article for distribution/sale in Delhi on behalf of the manufacturer i.e. accused no. 2 M/s Aarya Organic Foods and Ayurvedic Industries Pvt. Ltd. of which accused no. 1 Rajesh Kumar is the nominee and therefore incharge of and responsible for conduct of day to day business of the firm.
3. It is further the prosecution's case that the sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and as per the report of Public Analyst the sample was found not conforming to the standards because solids not fat were less than the prescribed minimum limit of 9.0% and accordingly after obtaining the necessary Sanction / Consent under Section 20 of the Act the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act 1954 punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the Act.
4. After the complaint was filed, accused persons were summoned vide orders dated 11.07.2011. Accused no. 2 Rajesh Kumar after filing his appearance moved an application under Section 13(2) of PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory and consequent thereto second counterpart of the sample as per the choice of the accused was sent to CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 3 of 6 Director, CFL (Pune) for its analysis vide orders dated 29.07.2011. The Director, CFL after analysing the sample opined vide its Certificate dated 16.08.2010 (in fact 16.08.2011) that " sample does not conform to the standards of Full Cream Milk as per PFA Rules 1955 as per tests performed". The Director so opined as the Milk fat were found at 5.7% against the minimum prescribed limit of 6.0%.
5. During the course of trial proceedings against accused Sunder Lal (accused no. 1 as per the original complaint) were abated on account of his death vide proceedings dated 02.08.2013.
6. Notice for violation of provision of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act 1954 punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against both the accused vide orders dated 18.09.2013 to which both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Today the matter is fixed for PE. However in my opinion taking into account the report of the Director no purpose shall be served in further continuation of trial in the present case.
8. To establish its case of adulteration i.e. that the sample of pasteurized full cream milk was not conforming to the standards the prosecution is relying upon the report of Director, CFL dated 16.08.2010 ( in fact 16.08.2011) who had reported that CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 4 of 6 the sample of pasteurized full cream milk did not conform to the standards as the milk fat were less than the prescribed minimum limit of 6.0%. However as per the report of the Director, CFL, he used the Gerber method for the purpose of analyzing the sample of pasteurized full cream milk so collected by the Food Inspector. It is reflected in his report that he used I.S. 1224 Part I 1977 for the purpose of calculating the percentage of milk fat in the sample of pasteurized full cream milk so analyzed and thereafter By difference calculated the contents of the milk solids not fat in the sample of full cream milk. This is Gerber method as has been fairly conceded by Ld. SPP. The said method is not a sure/accurate test for the purpose of analysis of food article/ milk so as to give a finding/report regarding the milk fat and milk solids not fat in sample of milk as held by the Hon. Apex Court in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564. The Hon. Apex Court observed as under:
".......The High Court has indicated that although the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra V. Narayan Dewlu Shanbhag held that Gurber's method of analysis of the quality of food substance was not of assured quality and accuracy and such method was not certified by the Indian Standard Institute. The public analyst however followed Gurber's method and on the basis of such report the prosecution case was initiated. In that view of the matter the High Court did not intend to interfere with the order of acquittal. In our view, the High Court has taken a reasonable view and interference by this Court is not warranted. The appeal, therefore, fails and dismissed accordingly."
9. Reliance may also be placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Dewlu Shanbhaju (1979) 3 Cr LR 117 (Bombay), G.K. Upadhayay Vs. Kanubhai CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 5 of 6 Raimalbhai Rabari and another 2009 (1) FAC 499 and Keshubhai Ranabhai Tukadiya Vs. State of Gujarat 2009 (1) FAC 565.
10. In view of the above as the Director used the Gerber method no reliance can be placed upon the report for the purpose of concluding whether the sample of pasteurized full cream milk so collected was adulterated or not. Though Ld. SPP for the complainant argued that the Gerber method is a prescribed method in DGHS Manual and is a valid and accurate test and in fact it is the most widely used test all over the world for the purpose of analysis of food article/milk to find out the percentage of the milk fat and the same is also certified by Indian Standards Institute from time to time however in view of the above ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court and failure on the part of the Ld. SPP to distinguish the said ruling I find no merits in his contention.
11. Accordingly in view of my above discussion and the law laid down inCorporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 the continuation of the trial shall be an exercise in futility. Accordingly PE is closed and SA is dispensed with. Both accused persons stand acquitted of the charges in the present case.
12. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Gaurav Rao) on 16th February 2015 ACMMII/ New Delhi CC No. 367/03 DA Vs. Sunder Lal etc. Page 6 of 6