Delhi District Court
Food Inspector vs . Ravinder Gupta on 22 October, 2011
::1::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 290/03
Food Inspector Vs. Ravinder Gupta
Department of PFA S/o Shri Ram Bharose Gupta
Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Rahul Sweets
A20, Lawrence Road D1/525, Gali No. 13
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Ashok Nagar, Delhi 93
R/o: D1/486, Gali No. 13
Ashok Nagar, Delhi 93
J U D G M E N T
Serial number of the case :290/03 Date of the commission of the offence :29.04.2003 Date of filing of the complaint :29.07.2003 Name of the Complainant, if any : R.P. Singh, Food Inspector. 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 not guilty Final order : Convicted Arguments heard on : 20.10.2011 Judgment announced on : 22.10.2011 CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::2::
Brief Statement of reasons for such decision
1. The present complaint was filed on 27.07.2003 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. R.P. Singh against the afore named accused. The complaint runs to the effect that on 29.04.2003 at about 6:00 PM, FI Sh. R.P. Singh purchased a sample of 'Vanaspati', a food article for analysis from Sh. Ravinder Gupta, S/o Sh. Ram Bharose Gupta, Vendor of M/s Rahul Sweets, D1/525, Gali No. 13, Ashok Nagar, Delhi 93, where the said food article was stored for sale and where said Sh. Ravinder Gupta was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The FI purchased approximately 375 gms of 'Vanaspati', taken from an open Plastic Container, bearing no label declaration, under the supervision and direction of Sh. R.K. Chauhan, SDM / LHA, after mixing properly with the help of clean and dry Karchi by rotating it in all possible directions. Thereafter, it was equally divided into three parts by putting into three separate clean and dry glass bottles. Each sample bottle was separately packed, fastened and sealed as per the requirements. The vendor's signature were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice was given to accused and price paid vide Vendor's Receipt dated 16.06.2005 but, the vendor refused to accept the price by making a statement that the sample commodity was CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::3::
not for sale and was for use in preparation of samosa and bread pakora. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents were signed by Ravinder Gupta and the other witness namely Sh. D.N. Verma, FA, (as no public witness had come forward for the purpose despite efforts).
2. The complaint further contains that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA code No. 51/LHA/4078 was sent to the PA, Delhi in intact condition and the remaining two intact counterparts were deposited with the LHA. The PA analysed and found that the sample 'did not conform to standards because the same was not containing sesame oil (negative baudouin test)'.
3. Further, said Sh. Ravinder Gupta was found to be Vendorcum Proprietor of M/s Rahul Sweets (as above) at the time of sampling and was found to be the InCharge and responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the said Shop. After the conclusion of the investigation entire case file including the statutory documents; was 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 29.07.2003. He CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::4::
appeared and exercised the Right and option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and consequent thereto, the second sample counterpart (v/o dated
05.11.2003) was sent to the Director CFL; for being analysed. The Director furnished the Report vide Certificate dated 09.11.2003. It is reflected therein that the sample was found not conforming to the standards of 'Vanaspati' as per PFA Rules 1955.
5. Charge for the violation of the Provisions of S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act,1954; punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w S. 7 of the Act of 1954 was framed upon the accused vide order dated 31.08.2004, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Charge so framed was amended vide order dated 25.03.2010 as in the Charge framed earlier the offence had been shown punishable U/s 16 (1A) instead of 16(1)(a) of the Act of 1954.
6. Three witnesses namely Sh. R.P. Singh; Food Inspector (PW1), Sh. R.K. Chauhan; the then SDM/LH (PW2) and Sh. D.N. Verma; Field Assistant (PW3) were examined on behalf of the complainant and the PE stood closed vide order dated 21.07.2009. It is also worth mentioning that even after the amendment of the charges the accused opted for not to recall any of the witnesses.
CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::5::
7. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded as on 03.11.2009 wherein, the accused intended to lead defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was led and DE stood closed vide order dated 14.05.2010. A statement of accused to this effect was also recorded wherein, he stated that 'he does not wish to lead evidence'. As the charge had been amended vide order dated 25.03.2010, additional Statement of accused Ravinder Gupta U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded as on 14.05.2010. Here also, the accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. File Perused. Counsels heard.
9. The accused was made to face the prosecution on the basis of PA Report dated 23.05.2003. The said Report reveals that sample was found not conforming to the standards of 'Vanaspati' because it was not containing 'sesame oil' as it was found to be 'negative' on Baudouin Test. Thereafter, the accused on being summoned appeared and exercised the Right U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and the counterpart selected by the accused was sent to and got analysed from the CFL, Pune. The Certificate of the Director CFL dated 09.10.2003 does reveal that the sample was found not conforming to the standards of CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::6::
'Vanaspati'. Here also, the sample counterpart was adjudged 'negative' on Baudouin Test. The melting point of 'Vanaspati' was also found exceeding the permissible range thereof. The Report of the Director CFL is not only per se admissible but, is also the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
10. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined 3 witnessed and all the witnesses have deposed on the dotted lines of the Complaint. PW1 FI Shri R.P. Singh has stated that on 29.04.2003, the Raiding Party of the PFA Officials consisting of himself, FA Shri D.N. Verma and SDM/LHA Shri R.K. Chauhan had visited the given premises and after disclosing identity and intention to the vendor / accused, they had purchased the requisite quantity of 'Vanaspati' for analysis purposes. Price of the sample commodity was offered to the vendor / accused vide Receipt Ex. PW 1/A but, he refused to accept the same on the plea that vanaspati was not for sale as such and the same was being used for the preparation of samosa and bread pakora. The Notice in Form VI was also prepared at the spot vide Ex. PW 1/B. Panchnama stands proved vide Ex. PW 1/C. It has further been deposed by the aforesaid witness that the contents of all these documents were read over and explained to the accused, prior to obtaining his signatures thereupon. It has also well been CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::7::
stated that the sample commodity so purchased from the vendor was equally divided into three counterparts and after proper mixing thereof was put into three clean and dry sample bottles, which were thereafter, separately packed, fastened, sealed etc. in due compliance of the requisite procedural formalities. One counterpart of the sample stood deposited with PA as on 30.04.2003 i.e on the next day against the Receipt Ex. PW 1/D and the rest of the two sample counterparts stood deposited with SDM/LHA vide Receipt Ex. PW 1/E. The said witness has proved the PA Report vide Ex. PW 1/G along with the opinion to the effect that sample did not conform to the standard because it did not contain sesame oil (negative on Baudouin test). The document Ex. PW 1/H is towards proving that the shop / firm was not found registered with Sales Tax Office. Further, the requisite Consent stands proved vide Ex. PW 1/J, the service of Intimation Letter along with PA Report stands proved vide documents Ex. PW 1/L and Ex. PW 1/M. The deposition as made by rest of the two witnesses are on the similar lines and thus corroborate that of the main FI i.e. PW1.
11. The standard for 'Vanaspati' is provided Under Item A.19 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955, which in its relevant portion is being reproduced hereunder: CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::8::
Item A.19 of Appendix 'B' ' VANASPATI means any refined edible vegetable oil or oils, subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form. It shall be prepared by hydrogenation from groundnut, cotton seed oil, and sesame oil or mixtures thereof or any other harmless vegetable oils allowed by the Government for the purpose. [Refined sal seed fat, if used, shall not be more than 10 per cent of the total oils mix]. It shall conform to the standards specified below:
(i) .............................................................................
(ii) .............................................................................
(iii) .............................................................................
(iv) .............................................................................
(v) the melting point as determined by capillary slip method shall be from 31 deg. C. to 41 deg. C. (both inclusive)
(vii) .............................................................................
(viii) .............................................................................
(ix) ............................................................................. CC No. 290/03
DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::9::
(x) it shall contain raw or refined sesame (til) oil in sufficient quantity, so that when the 'Vanaspati' is mixed with refined groundnut oil in the proportion of 20 : 80, the color produced by the Baudouin's Test shall not be lighter than 2.0 Red Unit in a 1 cm cell on a lavibond scale.
(xi) .............................................................................
(xii) .............................................................................
(xiii) .............................................................................
test for argemone oil shall be 'negative'.
12. In the given context, both the sample counterparts have been found and adjudged to be negative on Baudouin's test, meaning thereby that the sample of 'Vanaspati' was violative of Clause 'x' of Item A.19 as 'Vanaspati' is mandatorily required to be 'positive' on Baudouin's Test, so as to produce the color not lighter than 2.0 Red Unit in a 1 cm cell on a lavibond scale. Not only the Public Analyst but, the Director CFL also gave the Report to the effect that the sample was found not conforming to the standards of 'Vanaspati' as per PFA Rules, 1955. Both these Experts are in concurrence with each other in so far as the Baudouin's Test is concerned. It has thus been reiterated that the food article in question i.e. CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::10::
'Vanaspati' was not containing the necessary ingredient / constituent i.e. 'Sesame Oil'. Moreover, the Report of the Director CFL is the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and thus, it has conclusively been proved that the given sample was not found conforming to the standards of 'Vanaspati'.
13. The accused in his defence has tried to agitate the following issues:
(i) Vanaspati was not mixed properly, prior to lifting the sample thereof.
(ii) Til Oil is costlier than the Vanaspati(?)
(iii) Non addition of Til Oil does not affect the quality of Vanaspati.
(iv) BTT Test is not a sure test.
14. As far as the objection of proper mixing of the commodity in question is concerned, the same does have no substance at all more so, in the light of the very nature of the sample commodity. A food article like 'Vanaspati' does not require any sort of homogenisation of the same, prior to lifting the sample therefrom. It is also worth mentioning that all the prosecution witnesses have positively proved even the fact of proper mixing the commodity in question, prior to lifting the sample and this deposition was CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::11::
not at all controverted in the crossexamination of PW1 & PW2.
15. The remaining objections also deserve the same fate as the same are having no force therein. The objection to the effect that the sesame (til) oil is costlier than the 'Vanaspati' does not at all constitute any defence ground. It is beyond comprehension as to how such an objection has been raised in defence. Further, when the Act itself mandates that such 'n' such ingredients would necessarily be there in the food article 'Vanaspati', it makes no sense in saying that the 'Vanaspati' devoid of til oil, had or had not been rendered on a lesser footing in terms of quality thereof. The objection that BTT Test was not a sure test also becomes redundant in the light of the fact that both the Experts have concurred in their findings that the given samples were adjudged 'negative' in respect of Baudouin Test and also because of the fact that the Report of the Director CFL is the conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. Thus, all the objections raised by / on behalf of the accused are of no avail.
16. The afore summarised appreciation of the material on record is clear enough to conclude that the 'Vanaspati' was found not conforming to the standards and that the accused was not having any valid and cogent defence to put forth. Accordingly, the accused is found and held guilty of CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::12::
violating the provisions of S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of the Act of 1954; punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w S. 7 thereof.
Be put up on 09.11.2011, for arguments / order on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (Raghubir Singh) on 22 October, 2011 nd ACMMII/New Delhi CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::13::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI C.C. No. 290/03 Food Inspector Vs. Ravinder Gupta Department of PFA S/o Shri Ram Bharose Gupta Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Rahul Sweets A20, Lawrence Road D1/525, Gali No. 13 Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Ashok Nagar, Delhi 93 R/o: D1/486, Gali No. 13 Ashok Nagar, Delhi 93 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Shri A.K. Padhy, ld. Chief Prosecutor for the Complainant.
Convict in person with Shri R.D. Goel, Advocate. Heard on the point of sentence. Ld. Counsel for convict has prayed for taking a lenient view on the ground that the accused / convict is not a previous convict. It is further argued on behalf of the convict that he is the only bread earner of his family consisting of his wife and daughter.
On the other hand, Ld. Chief Prosecutor has argued that the convict does not deserve any leniency as the offences under the PFA Act CC No. 290/03 DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta ::14::
are economic offences and should be dealt with suitably and that one should not be allowed to dupe the innocent mases.
Taking into consideration the submissions as summarised herein above, the convict is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default thereof convict shall further undergo S.I. for 7 days. Fine paid.
At this stage, on request of the Ld. Counsel for the convict, he is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount until the expiry of the appeal period. Bail bond furnished. Accepted.
Copy of the judgment as well as order on sentence supplied to the convict free of cost; against receipt.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Raghubir Singh
on 09 November, 2011
th
ACMMII/ New Delhi
CC No. 290/03
DA Vs. Ravinder Gupta