Delhi District Court
Da vs . Pritam Rana Page 1 Of 10 on 11 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 146/08
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
Pritam Rana S/o Sh. Madan Singh Rana
M/s Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar,
28, Plot near DPark, Pandav Nagar,
Delhi110092
R/o Village Dehra, Garh Mukteshwar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
........ VendorcumProprietor
Serial number of the case : 146/08
Date of the commission of the offence : 12.05.2008
Date of filing of the complaint : 25.09.2008
Name of the Complainant : Sh. V. P. S. Chaudhary Food
Inspector
CC No. 146/08
DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 1 of 10
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 : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 11.08.2014
Judgment announced on : 11.08.2014
Brief facts of the case
1.In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 12.05.2008 at about 08.00 p.m. Food Inspector V. P. S. Chaudhary and Field Assistant Sh. Jagdish Prashad under the supervision and directions of SDM / LHA Sh. Radha Charan visited M/s Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar, 28, Plot near DPark, Pandav Nagar, Delhi110092, where accused Pritam Rana who was the vendorcumproprietor was found present conducting the business of milk and milk products including milk for sale for human consumption and in compliance of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the Food Inspector collected / purchased the sample of milk.
2. 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 does not conform to standard because milk fat & milk solids not fat are less than the prescribed minimum limit of 6.0% and 9.0% respectively when judged on the basis of Buffalo milk and accordingly after obtaining the necessary Sanction / Consent under Section 20 of CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 2 of 10 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.
3. After the complaint was filed, the accused was summoned vide orders dated 25.09.2008.
4. 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 the accused vide order dated 14.07.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter the complainant/prosecution examined three witnesses i.e. FI Sh. V. P. S. Chaudhary as PW1, the then SDM/LHA Sh. Radha Charan as PW2 and Sh. Jagdish Prashad, FA as PW3 and thereafter, PE was closed vide orders dated 11.08.2014.
6. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 11.08.2014 wherein the accused claimed himself to be innocent.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:
7. PW1 Sh. V. P. S. Chaudhary deposed that he was posted as FI in Sub CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 3 of 10 Division Preet Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on that day he along with FA Sh. Jagdish Prashad under the supervision of Sh. Radha Charan, SDM/LHA, visited the premises of Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar, 28, Plot Near DPark, Pandav Nagar, Delhi92, where accused Pritam Rana was found conducting the business of milk & milk products including milk stored there for sale for human consumption. He deposed that first of all they disclosed their identity and intention to the accused/vendor for purchasing a sample of milk for analysis, for which he agreed. He deposed that before starting the sample proceedings, he tried to associate some public witnesses, but none agreed. He deposed that then on his request, FA Sh. Jagdish Prashad joined as a witness in sample proceedings. He deposed that thereafter, at about 08.00 PM he purchased 1500 ml of milk from the vendor, which was lying in an open Tanki bearing no label or declaration. He deposed that the sample was taken after proper mixing the milk with the help of a measure already lying in the said Tanki, by rotating it in all possible directions several times. He deposed that the so purchased quantity of sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by him by putting it in three clean and dry glass bottles. He further deposed that 40 drops of Formalin were added in each sample bottle and the bottles were gently shaken for its uniform dispersion. He deposed that all the three sample bottles were separately packed, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He deposed that LHA slips bearing his signature and Code No. were affixed on all the three counterparts from top to bottom and vendor's signatures were obtained on each counterpart in such a manner so as to appear partly on LHA slip and partly on wrapper of the counterpart. CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 4 of 10 He deposed that a payment of Rs. 30/ was made to the vendor towards the price of the sample commodity vide Vendors Receipt Ex. PW1/A bearing signature of vendor at point A. He deposed that Notice in Form VI was also prepared at the spot vide Ex. PW1/B and a copy of the same was given to the vendor as per his endorsement at portion X to X, bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that Panchnama was prepared at the spot vide Ex. PW1/C bearing the signature of vendor at point A. He deposed that all these documents were read over and explained to the vendor in Hindi and then vendor signed at point A, witness signed at point B and he signed the same at point C. He deposed that one counterpart of the sample along with one copy of Memo in Form VII in a sealed packet and another copy of Memo in Form VII in a separate sealed cover were deposited with PA on the next working day i.e. 13.05.2008 vide PA Receipt Ex. PW1/D. He deposed that the remaining two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of Memo in Form VII in a sealed packet were deposited with LHA on 13.05.2008, under intimation that one counterpart of the same has already been deposited with PA. He deposed that LHA Receipts in this regard is Ex. PW1/E bearing signature of LHA at point A and his signature at point B. He deposed that all the copies of Memo in Form VII were bearing his signature and seal impression. He deposed that after receiving of PA Report which is Ex. PW1/F bearing signature of PA at point A, it was revealed that sample was not conforming to the standards and accordingly on the directions of the LHA, he conducted the investigation. He deposed that during investigation he sent a letter Ex. PW1/G to the vendor through post for seeking information on the constitution of M/s Garhwal Dugdh CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 5 of 10 & Paneer Bhandar but no reply of the same was received. He deposed that he sent a letter to STO Ward no. 84 vide Ex. PW1/H and received its reply at portion X according to which M/s Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar was not registered in that ward. He deposed that during investigation the accused was found vendorcum proprietor of M/s Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar. He deposed that after conclusion of investigation he submitted the entire case file to SDM/LHA who forwarded the same to Sh. Mohan Lal, the then Director, PFA for obtaining his consent and the then Director PFA granted his consent in this case vide Ex. PW1/I, bearing his signatures at point A. He deposed that thereafter he filed the complaint before this Hon. Court vide Ex. PW1/J, bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that after filing the complaint he sent intimation letter along with copy of PA report to vendor through registered post and same was not received back undelivered. Photocopy of intimation letter is Ex. PW1/K and photocopy of postal registration receipt is Ex. PW1/L, bearing relevant entry at point A.
8. During his cross examination he stated that they reached at the shop of the vendor at about 07.30 p.m. He stated that at the time when they reached at the shop of the vendor 23 persons were purchasing milk from him. He stated that a board under the name and style of Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar was being displayed on the shop of the vendor. He stated that during investigation he sent a letter to the vendor for seeking information as to who was the proprietor of Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar but he did not give any reply of the same. He stated that CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 6 of 10 however on enquiry it was found that vendor was the proprietor of the said shop. He denied the suggestion that the vendor has no connection with the shop in question or that he did not make any enquiry in this regard that as to who was the proprietor of Garhwal Dugdh & Paneer Bhandar. He stated that the PFA team remained at the shop upto 8.45 p.m. He stated that the tanki wherein the milk was lying was found covered with a lid (Dhakkan) and the lid was removed by the vendor as and when a customer purchased milk from him from that Tanki. He admitted that there were other shops situated near the shop of the vendor. He denied the suggestion that he did not make efforts to join the public witnesses in sample proceedings. He stated that the sample was taken with the help of a measure which was already lying in the said Tanki. He denied the suggestion that he has not taken a proper sample in this case or that accused has been falsely implicated.
9. PW2 Sh. Radha Charan, the then SDM/LHA and PW3 Sh. Jagdish Prashad, Field Assistant deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief.
10. This so far is the prosecution evidence in the matter.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the Ld. defence counsel as also the Ld. SPP for complainant. I have also carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 7 of 10 prosecution in this case.
12. At the outset it was argued by Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Vimal Rastogi that the present case is covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 . It was argued that the PA used Gerber method which is not a sure/accurate test and accordingly no reliance can be placed upon the PA's report and accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone.
13. Perusal of the records reveals that to establish its case of adulteration i.e. that the sample of milk was not conforming to the standards the prosecution is relying upon the report of PA dated 28.05.2008 who had reported that the sample of milk did not conform to the standards as the milk fat and milk solids not fat were less than the prescribed minimum limit of 6.0% and 9.0% respectively. However as per the report of the Public Analyst (PA), he used the Gerber method for the purpose of analyzing the sample of milk so collected by the Food Inspector. It is reflected in his report that he used Gerber method for the purpose of calculating the percentage of milk fat in the sample of milk and thereafter By difference calculated the contents of the milk solids not fat in the sample of milk. The said method is not a sure/accurate test for the purpose of analysis of 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. CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 8 of 10 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."
14. Reliance may also be placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Dewlu Shanbhaju (1979) 3 Cr LR 117 (Bombay), G.K. Upadhayay Vs. Kanubhai Raimalbhai Rabari and another 2009 (1) FAC 499 and Keshubhai Ranabhai Tukadiya Vs. State of Gujarat 2009 (1) FAC 565.
15. In view of the above as the PA used the Gerber method no reliance can be placed upon the report for the purpose of concluding whether the sample of 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 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 CC No. 146/08 DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 9 of 10 ruling I find no merits in his contention.
16. Accordingly in view of my above discussion and the law laid down in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 the accused stands acquitted of the charges in the present case.
17. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Gaurav Rao)
on 11th August 2014 ACMMII/ New Delhi
CC No. 146/08
DA Vs. Pritam Rana Page 10 of 10