Delhi District Court
Da vs . Suresh Kumar Page 1 Of 19 on 26 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 250/03
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Das
M/s Bala Ji Store,
S. No. S1177, Mangol Puri, Delhi
R/o S1184, Mangol Puri, Delhi
........ VendorcumProprietor
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 250/03
Date of the commission of the offence : 21.04.2003
Date of filing of the complaint : 02/07/03
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Food
Inspector
CC No. 250/03
DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 1 of 19
Offence complained of or proved : Violation of provisions of
Section 2 (ia) (j) & (m) of PFA
Act 1954 and violation of
provisions of Rule 23 r/w Rule
28 & 29 of PFA Rules 1955;
punishable U/s 16(1A) r/w
section 7 of the PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 24.06.2013
Judgment announced on : 26.06.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 02.07.2003 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta against the accused Suresh Kumar. It is stated in the complaint that on 21.04.2003 at about 6.15 PM, FI Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta purchased a sample of Dal Masoor, a food article for analysis from Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Das of M/s Bala Ji Store, S. No. S1177, Mangol Puri, Delhi, where the said food article was found stored for sale and where accused Suresh Kumar was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta purchased 1500 gms of Dal Masoor which was taken from a small gunny bag bearing no label declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the Dal Masoor with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating in all possible directions i.e clockwise, anti CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 2 of 19 clockwise, up and downwards several times under the supervision and direction of Shri Kartar Singh, SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by Food Inspector by putting it in three clean and dry bottles and each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of vendor were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the bottles containing the sample. Notice was given to accused and price of sample was also paid to the accused vide Vendor's Receipt dated 21.04.2003. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Suresh Kumar and the other witness namely Sh. Kartar Singh, SDM/LHA. It is stated that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. Kartar Singh, SDM/LHA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA code No. 63/LHA/4174 in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and opined that "the sample is adulterated because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. Sunsent yellow f.c.f.".
3. It is further stated that Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Das was VendorcumProprietor of M/s Bala Ji Store at S. No. S1177, Mangol Puri, Delhi and as such he is incharge and responsible for day to CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 3 of 19 day conduct of the business of the said shop. Thereafter, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (j) & (m) of the PFA Act and also for violation of Rule 23 r/w Rules 28 and 29 of the PFA Rules which is punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 02.07.2003 The accused appeared and moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory (CFL). The said application was allowed and consequently second counterpart of the sample was sent to CFL, Pune for analysis. Director, CFL on analysing the second counterpart of the sample in question opined vide his Certificate dated 25.08.2003 that "sample does not conform to the standards of split Pulse (Dal) Masur as per PFA Rules 1955 ".
5. The prosecution examined SDM/LHA Kartar Singh as PW1 and Food Inspector Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta who conducted the sample proceedings against the accused as PW2 towards precharge evidence and vide order dated 20.07.2004, pre charge evidence was closed.
6. Charge for violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) (j) and (m) of the PFA Act, punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 11.10.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 4 of 197. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, in post charge evidence the prosecution examined witnesses including the then SDM/LHA Sh. Kartar Singh as PW1 and Food Inspector Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta as PW 2 and PE was closed vide order dated 03.04.2010.
8. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.02.2011 wherein accused claimed himself to be innocent and opted to lead evidence in his defence.
9. The accused in his defence examined himself as DW1 and Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel as DW2 and DE was closed vide order dated 06.03.2013.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill Mark D1 and sold the sample commodity in the same condition as purchased by him from the aforesaid company and, therefore, accused is entitled to the benefit of warranty U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act. He further argued that Bill of purchase was also shown to the Food Inspector at the time of sampling, but same was not considered. He further argued that sample lifted by the Food Inspector was not representative one and it was not properly homogenized which is evident from the variations in the report of Public Analyst and Director, CFL and in the absence of sample being representative, accused cannot be convicted. He further argued that there are contradiction in the CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 5 of 19 statement of PWs regarding mixing of the sample commodity which shows that in fact sample was not even homogenized by the PFA team which has resulted in different analysis by two experts. He further argued that the test applied by the Public Analyst for detecting the synthetic colour in the sample commodity is paper chromatography, which is not a sure test and, therefore, accused is liable to be given benefit of doubt. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Counsel for accused has placed reliance upon various case laws reported in State Vs. Suresh Kumar 2010 (2) FAC 204, State Vs. Ram Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398, State Vs. Mahender Kumar 2008 (I) FAC 177, Maya Ram Vs. State 1987 (II) FAC 320, State Vs. Subhash Chand 2012 (2) JCC 1052, Shew Chandar Mathur Vs. State 1991 (1) FAC 9, State Vs. L.V. Prajapati 2009 (2) CCC 134, Rajinder Kumar Vs. State 2008 (3) RCR Crime 422, Aboo Vs. Food Inspector 2003 (I) FAC 81 and Niranjan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State 2012 (1) FAC 457.
12. On the other hand, the Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that accused had not shown any bill of purpose of the sample commodity from its manufacturing company at the time of sample proceedings and he has fabricated the bill Mark D1 later on, which also could not be duly proved by the accused and, therefore, no warranty U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act can be granted to the accused. He further argued that as per report of Director, CFL, the sample does not conform to the standards of split Pulse (Dal) Masoor as per PFA Rules and the report of Director, CFL being conclusive and supersedes the report of Public Analyst, accused cannot be given CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 6 of 19 benefit of variations in the reports of PA and CFL. He further argued that paper chromatography test to detect the synthetic colour in the sample is a valid test.
13. Both the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as per the averments made in the complaint. PW1 Sh. Kartar Singh, the then SDM/LHA has deposed in his examinationinchief that on 21.04.2003, under his direction and supervision, FI Sanjiv Kumar Gupta and FA Barmanand visited the premises at M/s Balaji Store, S No. S1177, Mangol Puri, Delhi, where accused was found conducing the business of the said store after having stored food articles including Dal Masoor for sale for human consumption, which was contained in an open gunny bag bearing no label declaration. He further deposed that FI introduced himself to the accused and intended to purchase the sample of Dal Masoor for analysis to which accused agreed. He further deposed FI also made efforts to join some passerby, customers and neighbouring shopkeepers to join in the proceedings, but none agreed and on the request of FI, he joined the same. He further deposed that about 6.15 PM, FI purchased 1500 gms of Dal Masoor from accused on payment of Rs. 36/ vide receipt Ex. PW1/A and before taking sample, Dal Masoor was properly mixed by him with the help of a clean and dry jhaba by rotating it in all possible directions several times. He further deposed that FI divided the sample into three equal parts by putting the same in 3 separate clean and dry bottles and each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 7 of 19 to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that FI prepared notice Ex. PW 1/B and Panchnama Ex. PW1/C at the spot and a copy of notice was also given to the accused who made a statement vide Ex. PW1/D claiming himself to be sole proprietor of the shop and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the same and all the aforesaid documents were read over and explained to the accused, who after understanding the same signed the same. He further deposed that on 22.04.2003 FI deposited with him two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of memo of Form VII in a sealed packet vide receipt Ex. PW1/F with the intimation that one counterpart of the sample has already been deposited with PA and as per PA report Ex. PW 1/G, sample was adulterated because it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter i.e. sunset yellow fcf.
14. During his deposition, PW1 has also placed on record the reply sent by the STO in response to the letter sent by the FI as Ex. PW1/H, consent given by the Director, PFA for initiating the prosecution against the accused as Ex. PW1/J, complaint filed by FI as Ex. PW1/K, intimation letter sent to the accused along with PA report as Ex. PW1/L, photocopy of its postal registration receipt as Ex. PW1/M and CFL report as Ex. PW1/N.
15. PW2 is FI Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta who purchased the sample and conducted the sample proceedings. He has also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 in his examinationinchief and has also proved on record deposition of one counterpart of the sample with the Public Analyst as Ex. PW1/E. CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 8 of 19
16. In his crossexamination after charge, PW1 stated that there was about 1520 Kg of Dal Masoor lying in a gunny bag and Dal was mixed with the help of clean and dry Jhaba. He further stated that there were other 34 Jhabas lying in the shop and for Dal Masoor, only one Jhaba was being used. He denied the suggestion that some colouring material was stuck to the Jhaba before using. He further denied the suggestion that there was some colouring material in the brown envelope before the Dal was put. He stated that he cannot comment that why the reports of two Analysts are different. He denied the suggestion that different samples were sent to different experts or that their reports are wrong.
17. PW2 in his crossexamination stated that he cannot comment upon the reports of the PA and Director, CFL why the same are different in respect of colour contents of counterpart of the same sample. He denied the suggestion that sample was not representative.
18. From the aforesaid crossexamination of the PWs, the defence of the accused appears to be that wrong method of lifting the sample was adopted by the Food Inspector and the Jhaba used in the sample proceedings was not clean and dry. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused has also taken a defence that he had purchased the Dal Masoor from Dharam Trading Company, Grain Merchants & Commission Agents, 4079, Naya Bazaar, Delhi vide Bill No. 43041 dated 22.01.2003 and the sample lifted by the FI was the same which he had purchased from the above mentioned firm and he did not apply any colour in the sample CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 9 of 19 commodity.
19. First of all, I shall deal with the contention of accused that he had purchased the sample commodity from a firm M/s Dharam Trading Company, Grain Merchants, Naya Bazar, Delhi and sold the same in the same condition as purchased by him and hence he is protected by the warranty U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act.
20. It is not in dispute that on 21.04.2003 at about 6.15 PM, a sample of Dal Masoor was lifted by the FI Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta from the shop of the accused. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who after analyzing the same opined vide his report dated 30.04.2003 that sample was adulterated because it was coloured with synthetic colour viz. Sunset yellow fcf. The report of Public Analyst has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/G on the basis of which present complaint has been launched against the accused.
21. As per case of accused, he had purchased the sample commodity of Dal Masoor from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill which he had shown the to the Food Inspector at the time of sampling, but the Food Inspector refused to accept the same.
22. In order to prove this contention, accused has examined himself as DW1 and stated in his examinationinchief that he has been running a Kiryana shop at premises No. S1177, Mangol Puri, Delhi for the last about 9 years, under the name and style of M/s Balaji Store. He further deposed that on 21.04.2003, at about 6.15 PM, three persons form PFA CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 10 of 19 Department came at his shop and at that time 1520 Kg of Dal Masoor was lying in his shop in an open gunny bag. He further deposed that FI lifted the sample of Dal Masoor from the open gunny bag and he produced the original Bill of Purchase of the sample commodity to the FI and also wanted to hand over the photocopy of the Bill to the FI, but he refused to accept the same on the ground that he was selling the Dal in question in open/ loose condition. He further deposed that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Dharam Trading Company, Naya Bazaar, Delhi and he told to the FI that it was the same Dal which he had purchased from M/s Dharam Trading Company, the sample of which was being lifted by the FI. Accused has also placed on record the original Bill of Purchase as Mark D1.
23. In his crossexamination, DW1 stated that he never sent the photocopy or original Bill to the PFA Department after the date of sample proceedings so as to apprise them that the FI did not accept the same on the ground that he was selling the Dal in loose/ open condition. He further stated that he did not make any complaint to the PFA Department or any other concerned authority i.e Health Department in respect of the above mentioned fact. He denied the suggestion that he did not show any Bill Mark D1 or any other Bill to the FI at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the Bill Mark D1 which he produced before the court at the time of recording his statement on 14.02.2011.
CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 11 of 1924. The accused has also examined Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel as DW2, who was one of partner of M/s Dharam Trading Company from which the accused has claimed to have purchased the sample commodity. DW2 stated in his examinationinchief that in the year 2003, he was one of the Partner of M/S Dharam Trading Company situated at 4079, Naya Bazar, Delhi and the other parter was Sh. Tarun Goel. He further deposed that said firm is still in existence. He further deposed that the bill Mark D1 belongs to their firm but he cannot identity as to who has issued the same. He further sated that through this Bill Mark D1, Dal Masoor had been sold to Balaji Trading Company, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
25. In his crossexamination DW2 stated that through this Bill, their firm had sold 10 bags of Dal Masoor to the above mentioned purchaser and these all 10 bags were supplied to the purchaser in the condition stitched with machine. He further stated that these bags were not in open condition when the same were supplied to the above mentioned purchaser and were in stitched condition. He further stated that he does not know as to who was the proprietor of M/s Balaji Trading Company, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He further stated that he does not know that the sample was declared not conforming to the standards by the Public Analyst. Voluntarily, he stated he had not sold any Da Masoor to M/s Balaji Store.
26. From the aforesaid evidence produced by the accused regarding purchase of sample commodity from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill Mark D1, it is evident that though the accused has CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 12 of 19 claimed that he had produced the Bill of purchase Mark D1 to the Food Inspector at the time of sample proceedings, but this plea of the accused is not plausible because after completing the sample proceedings, he did not sent original Bill of purchase or photocopy of same to the PFA Department nor he made any complaint to the PFA Department or any other authority that bill produced by him at the time of sampling was not considered by the Food Inspector. Even after appearing in the court, the accused did not take any steps to implead the firm M/s Dharam Trading Company from whom the accused has claimed to have purchased the sample commodity as party in the present case. The accused for the first time had produced the Bill in his evidence.
27. Though, accused has also examined Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel, who was one of the partner of M/s Dharam Trading Company as DW2 to prove his contention that he had purchased the sample commodity from the aforesaid company vide Bill Mark D1. But, the testimony of DW2 is shaky and wavering. In his examinationinchief, DW2 not only admits the Bill Mark D1 but also categorically states that vide Bill Mark D1 Dal Masoor had been sold to Balaji Store. But, in his crossexamination, DW2 has denied the said fact when he voluntarily stated that he had not sold any Dal Masoor to M/s Balaji Store. Not only this he even refused to recognize the accused and states that he does not know accused Suresh Kumar.
28. As such, from the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that accused has not able to prove his contention that he had produced the Bill CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 13 of 19 Mark D1 to the Food Inspector at the time of sampling. However, even though, the accused had not produced the Bill of Purchase Mark D1 at the time of sample proceedings and produced the same at later stage, still the accused cannot be deprived from warranty available U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act, provided that the accused is able to prove that he had purchased the goods with a written warranty and the goods were properly stored and he sold the same in same state as he had purchased. It has been held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Niranjan Kumar Agarwal Vs. The State of Assam 2012 (1) FAC 457 that, "There is no law in criminal trial, that the defence is bound to disclose its supporting documentary evidence before hand i.e. before the trial commences. The accused is called upon for entering into his defence only after conclusion of recording evidence of prosecution witness and examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C."
29. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority, the accused was not required to produce the Bill of purchase at the time of sampling and he can produce the same at the time of recording his evidence and prove the same as per law in order to take benefit of warranty U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act.
30. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the accused has been able to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill Mark D1 with a warranty and the sample commodity was properly stored and he sold in the same state in which he had purchased.
CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 14 of 1931. In this regard, DW2 Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel examined by the accused, who was one of the partner of M/s Dharam Trading Company from whom the accused claims to have purchased the sample commodity categorically admits in his examinationinchief the Bill Mark D1 by which Dal Masoor was sold to the accused, though in his crossexamination he retracts from his statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Bill Mark D1 placed on record by the accused is forged and fabricated. But, question which remains for consideration is that if mere purchase of the sample commodity against a bill is sufficient to grant the accused the benefit of warranty U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act. The answer lies in negative. The accused was further required to prove that he was selling the sample commodity in the same state in which he had purchased from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill Mark D1. But, the accused has failed to prove the same.
32. DW2 in his crossexamination has stated that their firm had sold 10 bags of Dal Masoor to the Balaji Store and l0 bags were supplied to the purchaser in the stitched condition with machine. He further stated that these bags were not in open condition when the same were supplied to the above mentioned purchaser and were in stitched condition. Whereas, the accused was found selling the Dal Masoor in loose condition. Therefore, the onus was upon the accused to prove that he was selling the sample commodity in the same condition as purchased by him from M/s Dharam Trading Company vide Bill Mark D1, but no positive evidence has been led CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 15 of 19 by the accused to prove the same. Therefore, accused cannot be said to be entitled for benefit U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act.
33. The present case has been launched against the accused on the basis of report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PW1/G found the sample lifted from the accused adulterated as it contained synthetic colouring matter viz. Sunset yellow fcf which is not permissible under PFA Act. The accused on appearing exercised his right u/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act and consequently second counterpart of the sample selected by the accused was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Pune for analyzing the sample and the report thereof in the form of Certificate of the Director, CFL, Pune dated 25.08.2003 was received. Perusal of same shows that sample does not conform to the standards of split pulse (Dal) Masoor as per PFA Rules 1955 because synthetic water soluble colours Sunset yellow FCF and Carmoisine were detected in the sample.
34. However, it is to be noted that though as per report of Public Analyst (PA) and Director, Central Food Laboratory (CFL), the sample of Dal Masoor lifted from the accused failed as synthetic colour i.e. sunset yellow fcf was detected in the sample, but a perusal of report of both the Analysts shows that there are variations in both the reports.
35. As per report of Public Analyst (PA) Ex. PW1/G, the moisture determined by heating the pulverized grains at 130133 deg. C was found to the tune of 8.53%, while Director, Central Food Laboratory CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 16 of 19 found the same to the tune of 9.94%. Similarly, Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PW1/G found the damaged grain by fungus, moisture or heating internally to the tune of 0.11%, while Director, CFL found the same Nil. Further, Public Analyst found the Foreign Matter organic to the tune of 0.03%, Foreign matter inorganic to the tune of 0.02%, Weeviled Grains to the tune of 0.08%, whereas Director, CFL found Foreign matter Nil, Foreign Organic matter as 0.046% and Weeviled Grains as 1.0%. Not only this, Public Analyst vide his report found only one artificial colouring matter i.e. sunset yellow in the sample, whereas Director, CFL found two synthetic water soluble colours i.e sunset yellow FCF and Carmoisine.
36. The aforesaid variations in the report of aforesaid two Analysts shows that the sample commodity was not properly mixed up before lifting it and hence it cannot be said to be representative sample. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Raja Ram Seth & Sons & Anr. Vs. Delhi Administration that, "If the variations in the report of PA and CFL is more than 0.3 % which is stated to be permissible limit, it cannot be said that identical representative samples were sent to both the Public Analyst and CFL and therefore it raises a doubt about the sample of being not homogenized and no conviction is permissible on the basis of said reports and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused." Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) FAC 371. Reliance may CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 17 of 19 also be placed upon State Vs. & Anr. 2010 (2) FAC 204.
37. The sample was not properly homogenized is further substantiated from the contradictions in the statement of PWs. PW1 Sh. Kartar Singh, under whose supervision the sample proceedings were conducted, stated in his evidence that before taking the sample, Dal Masoor was properly mixed by him with the help of a clean and dry jhaba by rotating it in all possible directions several times. While, PW2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta stated in his evidence that before taking the sample, he mixed the Dal Masoor properly with the help of clean and dry jhaba by rotating the same in all possible directions several times. As such, both the PWs are not sure as to who had mixed the Dal Masoor before taking the sample and are making contradictory statement to each other and it raises a doubt as to whether the sample was even homogenized by the PFA team or not before taking the sample.
38. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since there are variations in the report of Public Analyst (PA) and Director, Central Food Laboratory which is beyond the permissible limit of .3 %, it appears that sample was not representative one and therefore, benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused.
39. Further, a perusal of report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G and report of Director, CFL Ex. PW1/N shows that Paper Chromatography method has been applied by both the Analysts for detecting the artificial colouring matter in the sample commodity of Dal Masoor. The Hon'ble CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 18 of 19 Punjab and Haryana High Court in Maya Ram Vs. The State of Punjab has held that paper chromatography test is not a sure test to detect the colour in the sample commodity. In the present case, no other method apart from the Paper Chromatography test has been applied by both the Analysts to detect the adulteration or presence of colouring matter in the sample commodity. Therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority cited supra, report of Public Analyst on the basis of which present complaint has been launched against the accused cannot be said to be a valid report.
40. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go in favour of accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and the accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 26th June, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 250/03
DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 19 of 19
CC No. 250/03
DA Vs. Suresh Kumar
26.06.2013
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused with counsel Sh. R.D. Goel.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, the accused stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused has furnished B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 15,000/. Same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/26.06.2013 CC No. 250/03 DA Vs. Suresh Kumar Page 20 of 19