Delhi District Court
Fso(Northern Railway) vs . Pankaj Gupta And Ors. on 20 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NABEELA WALI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW
DELHI
In the matter of :
CC No. :- 3652/2017
Food Safety Officer, Northern Railway
Department of Food Safety
Govt of NCT of Delhi
A-20 Lawrence Road Industrial Area
Delhi-110035 .... Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Pankaj Gupta
S/o Sh. Ramanand Gupta
vendor of M/s Smt. Shamshad Begum
vending cont.N.Rly
Stn Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
Residence Add: 1052, Bagichi, Peerji,
Sumbji Mandi Delhi-110035
Post Kathogarh, Distt Kanpur(UP)
.... FBO-cum-Vendor
2. Smt Shamshad Begum
W/o Sh. Haffej Ulla
vending cont.N.Rly
Stn Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
Residence Add: Z-II, 376, Gali No. 02,
Block JJ, Colony Welcome Seelampur,
Delhi-110053
Digitally signed
.... Licensee
by NABEELA
WALI
NABEELA Date:
WALI 2022.12.20
17:21:01
+0530
Page No. 1/20
CC No:- 3652/2017
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial number of the case : 3652/2017
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 26.11.2016
(c) Name of the complainant : Khem Singh Food Safety Officer
(d) Name of the accused person(s), : 1. Sh. Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Ramanand Gupta, FBO/Vendor of Smt.Shamshad Begum vending Co.
2.Smt Shahida Parveen, W/o Sh.
Haffej Ulla Licensee of Smt. Shamshad Begum vending Co.
(e) Offences complained of : Section 3(1) (zx), Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) r/w Section 26, 51 and 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty
(g) Date of final arguments : 16.12.2022
(h) Date of Decision : 20.12.2022
(i) Decision : Both the accused are Convicted for offence punishable u/s 51 & 59 of the FSS Act, 2006.
Digitally signed Page No. 2/20CC No:- 3652/2017 NABEELA by NABEELA WALI FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. WALI Date: 2022.12.20 17:21:40 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is a complaint under Section 26/51 and 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'FSS Act'). Brief facts as enumerated in the complaint are that on 26.11.2016 the complainant Khem Singh, Food Safety Officer (hereinafter referred as the FSO) along with field assistant Sh. Kulwant Singh visited the Tea Stall at Platform No. 1, Railway Station, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi where accused no. 1 was found conducting the business of selling food articles which were lying stored exposed for sale for human consumption. The FSO disclosed his identity to Sh. Pankaj Gupta i.e. Food Business Operator-Cum-Vendor (hereinafter referred to as 'FBO') of M/s Tea Stall and expressed his intention to purchase a sample of Tomato Sauce (Loose) from the vendor, to which he agreed. FSO showed his intention of taking the sample of abovesaid food article for analysis. The sample was then lifted as per procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules.
2. The sample was analyzed by food analyst and vide his report no. NR 73/2016 dated 08.12.2016, food analyst opined that the sample is unsafe because of the presence of unpermitted colouring matter viz. 'Tartrazine, sunset yellow fct and Carmosine' and sub-standard because total soluble solids and acidity as acetic Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Page No. 3/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI Date:
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. 2022.12.20 17:21:48 +0530 acid are less than the prescribed minimum limits of 25.0% and 1.0% repectively. The Designated Officer sent copy of the report of food analyst to the accused persons and gave them an opportunity to file an appeal against the report of food analyst under Section 46(4) of FSS Act. The accused preferred an appeal to the RFL and vide report dated 27.03.2017, the sample was found to be sub-standard & unsafe.
3. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed against the accused persons namely Sh. Pankaj Gupta, FBO/Vendor of Smt. Shamshad Begum Vending Cont.N.Rly Stn. Delhi Subzi Mandi and Smt Shamshad Begum, Licensee, Vending Cont.N.Rly Stn. Delhi Subzi Mandi. The FSO on conclusion of investigation, also obtained consent under Section 42 of FSS Act, for filing the present complaint.
4. As the complaint was filed in writing by the public servant, recording of pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with and the accused persons were summoned vide order dated 10.07.2017. Accused persons appeared before the court and were admitted to bail. They were thereafter, served with notice under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') on 18.01.2018 for offences punishable under Section 26(2)(i) r/w Section 3(1)(zx) of FSS Act r/w Regulation Digitally signed Page No. 4/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 NABEELA by NABEELA WALI FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. WALI Date: 2022.12.20 17:21:54 +0530 2.3.27 to the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011 punishable u/s 59 of FSS Act and Section 26(2)
(ii) r/w Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) of FSS Act r/w proviso to Regulation 2.3.27 to the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011 as punishable u/s 51 and 52 of FSS Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
5. At the trial, the complainant department i.e. the prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case.
6. Khem Singh, FSO (Northern Railway) was examined as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that, he had purchased a sample of two Kg tomato sauce (loose) lying in open condition in a plastic jar on paying price of Rs.60/- to accused no. 1. He thereafter, divided them in four equal parts and put them into four clean dry plastic bottles and sealed the same with the seal of FSO. As per PW-1 labels were also pasted on each of the four sample counterparts and the FBO has also signed all the four labels affixed on each of the four sample counterparts. PW-1 stated that a notice in Form VA was prepared and copy of the same was given to FBO/accused person. He further deposed on the lines of the complaint and exhibited the following documents i.e.-;
Digitally signed by NABEELANABEEL WALI A WALI Date:
2022.12.20 17:21:59 +0530 Page No. 5/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.
1. Ex. PW1/A : Form VA;
2. Ex. PW1/B : FBO receipt;
3. Ex. PW1/C : Panchnama;
4. Ex. PW1/D : Form VI;
5. Ex.PW1/E : Receiving of Sample sent to Food Analyst on 28.11.2016;
6. Ex.PW1/F : Receipt of remaining samples sent to the DO;
7. Ex.PW1/G : Food Analyst Report;
8. Ex.PW1/H & Ex.PW1/I : Copy of FA Report sent to vendor as well as licensee;
9. Ex.PW1/J : Appeal for sending the sample to RFL;
10 Ex.PW1/K : RFL Report;
11. Ex.PW1/L : Recommendation dated 22.05.2017 of DO;
12. Ex.PW1/M : Sanction for prosecution;
13. Ex.PW1/N : Present complaint;
14. Ex.PW1/O : FSO report sent to DO for seeking permission for launching the prosecution;
15. Mark A : Copy of the registration certificate issued to licencee;
16. Mark B : Health certificate of FBO;
PW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of both accused persons, wherein he admitted that tomato sauce was not being sold directly but was given with patties, bread pakodas and samosa.
7. Sh. Kulwant Singh, who was part of the team that had visited the spot for sample proceedings was examined as PW-2. The aforesaid witness deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and Digitally signed NABEELA by NABEELA WALI Page No. 6/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI Date: 2022.12.20 17:22:07 +0530 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. identified his signatures on the documents concerned. PW-2 was cross examined on behalf of both the accused, wherein he stated admitted the suggestion that no. 1 was not selling tomato sauce directly to the customers.
8. No other witness was examined and thereafter, complainant's evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
9. Accused persons were thereafter, examined u/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C on 19.11.2022, wherein accused no. 1 admitted the fact of lifting and drawing of sample from the tea stall. Accused no. 2 stated that she is not aware of the proceedings as she was not present at the spot at the time of lifting the sample. However, she admitted that sample was sent to RFL on her request.
ARGUMENTS
10. Case then culminated into final arguments. Both the Ld. Special Prosecutor for the Department/Complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons addressed oral arguments. Written submission were also placed on record on behalf of the accused. It was argued by Ld. SPP that the complainant has been able to Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.12.20 Page No. 7/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 17:22:14 +0530 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused have not been able to rebut the findings of the report of RFL. It was further argued that both the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and no major contradiction can be seen in their testimony.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for both the accused persons have taken the following grounds of defence:-
1. That accused no. 2 was not present at the spot, she was only a licencee and accused no. 1 was carrying the shop;
2. It is further argued that accused no. 2 was already fined by the department vide receipt no. 22/3/18 and hence cannot be held guilty twice;
3. No public person was made a witness and PW-2 is a stock witness;
4. The food article was not for sale, but for use with patties;
5. There is no evidence that the bottles were made clean by FSO and same color was sticking to it at the time of taking sample;
6. That the method of analysis is not mentioned on the report in view of Section 46(3) of the Act;Digitally signed by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI Date: WALI 2022.12.20 17:22:21 +0530 Page No. 8/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.
12. Ld. Counsels for accused persons relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(i) State of Gujarat V. Safimohmmad Rasulbhai Nakum 2016 (1) FAC 358, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court;
(ii) Daulat Ram v. The State of Punjab 1979(2) FAC 202 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court;
(iii) State v. Subhash Chand 2012(2) JCC 1052, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
(iv) Smt. Manibai and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Appeal no. 36/1970 decided on 10.08.1973, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(v) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kamlesh Chand 2002(2) FAC 315, Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh;
(vi) Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab 1980(2) FAC 396,Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana;
(vii)Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tondon Etc in Criminal Appeal No. 101-104 of 1971, decided on 17.12.1975, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(viii) Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors 2014(1) FAC 198 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(ix) DA v. Rattan Lal CRLP No. 42/2014 of, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(x) Koyakutty v. Food Inspector 2000(2) FAC 238 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala; Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Date:
WALI 2022.12.20
17:22:28
+0530 Page No. 9/20
CC No:- 3652/2017
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.
(xi) C.D. Patel, Fodo Inspector v. Popatlaljivaji Thakor 2005(1) FC 46, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat;
FINDINGS
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. SPP for the complainant and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and have carefully perused the material available on record.
14. It is to be understood that the notice framed upon the accused persons was for violation of Section 26 (2)(i) r/w Section 3(1)(zx) of FSS Act, 2006 and Regulation No. 2.3.27 of FSS Regulations, 2011, as well as Section 26(2)(ii) of FSS Act r/w Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) of the Act. The relevant provisions of law are read as under:
Section 26 deals with Responsibilities of the food business operator - (1) Every food business operator shall ensure that the articles of food satisfy the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder at all stages of production, processing, import, distribution and sale within the businesses under his control. (2) No food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store, sell or distribute any article of food-
(i) which is unsafe;
(ii) which is mis-branded or sub-standard;
Section 3(1)(zx) defines "sub-standard" - an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;
Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Date: Page No. 10/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI 2022.12.20 17:22:38 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. +0530
Section 3(1)(zz) defines "unsafe food" which means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health; (vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or;
Regulation No. 2.3.27 deals with Tomato Ketchup and Tomato Sauce:-
1. Tomato Ketchup and Tomato Sauce means the product prepared by blending tomato juice/puree/paste of appropriate concentration with nutritive sweetners, salt, vinegar, spices and condiments and any other ingredients suitable to the product and heating to the requird consistency.
Tomato Paste may be used after dilution with water suitable for the purpose of maintaining the essential composition of the product.
2. The product may contain food additives permitted in these regulations including Appendix A. The product shall conform to the microbiological requirements given in Appendix B. It shall meet the following requirements:-
(i) Total Soluble solids (m/m) Not less than 25.0 percent
(ii) Acidity as acetic acid Not less than 1.0 percent Regulation No. 3.1.2(1) provides that unauthorized addition of colouring matter prohibited-The addition of colouring matter to any article of food except as specifically permitted by these regulations is prohibited;
Regulation No. 3.1.2(4) deals with synthetic food colours which may be used:
No Synthetic food colours or a mixture thereof except the following shall be used in food.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2022.12.20
17:22:50 Page No. 11/20
CC No:- 3652/2017 +0530
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. Sl No. Color Common Name Colour index Chemical class (1956)
1. Red Ponceau 16255 Azo 4R Carmoisine 14720 Azo Earthrosine 45430 Xanthene
2. Yellow Tartrazine 19140 Pyrozolone Sunset Yellow FCF 15985 Azo Regulation No. 3.1.2(6) deals with Use of permitted synthetic food colours prohibited-Use of permitted synthetic food colours in or upon any food other than those enumerated below is prohibited :-
(i) Ice-cream, milk lollies, frozen desserts, flavoured milk yoghurt, ice-cream mix powder;
(ii) Biscuits including biscuit wafer, pastries, cakes, confectionery, thread candies, sweets, savouries (dalmoth, mongia, phululab, sago papad, dal biji only);
(iii) Peas, strawberries and cherries in hermetically sealed containers, preserved or processed papaya, canned tomato juice, fruit syrup, fruit squash, fruit crushes, fruit cordial, jellies, jam, marmalade, candied crystallised or glazed fruits;
(iv) Non-alcoholic carbonated and non-carbonated ready to serve synthetic beverages including synthetic syrups, sherbats, fruit bar, fruit beverages, fruit drinks, synthetic soft-drink concentrates;
(v) Custard powder;
(vi) Jelly crystal and ice-candy;
(vii) Flavour emulsion and flavour paste for use in carbonated or non-carbonated beverages only under label declaration as provided in regulation 2.4.5(35) of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.
Section 51 deals with Punishment for sub-standard food: Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees;
Digitally signed by NABEELA WALI NABEELA Date: Page No. 12/20CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI 2022.12.20
17:23:03
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. +0530
Section 59 deals with Punishment for unsafe food:
Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
15. As per the case of the complainant, the sample of "Tomato Sauce" has failed the examination done by the Food Analyst, vide his report Ex.PW1/G as well as the report of RFL which is ExPW1/K as per which, the sample was unsafe due to presence of synthetic food colouring matter i.e. 'Tartrazine Sunset Yellow & Carmoisine and sub-standard due to total soluble solids and acidity below the minimum prescribed limit' in the sampled food article which is not permissible as per rules.
16. As far as the first argument regarding liability of accused no. 2 is concerned, as is manifest from the record, and is also undisputed, accused no. 2 is the licencee of the M/s Tea Stall from where the sample was lifted. The Registration Certificate issued by Northern Railway in favour of accused no. 2 and placed on record as 'Mark A' is subject to the provisions of the FSS Act.
Moreover, it is accused no. 2 herself who had written the letter Ex.PW1/J to the DO for filing the appeal against the report of the FA. Further as argued by the Ld. Counsel, accused no. 2 has also Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Date: WALI 2022.12.20 Page No. 13/20 17:23:22 CC No:- 3652/2017 +0530 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. deposited fine of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt dated 22.03.2018 imposed by the Department. Although on the day of lifting the sample, accused no. 1 was present at the stall, however, in view of Section 66 of the Act, accused no. 2 was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Tea Stall. No evidence has been led by the defence to show otherwise.
17. With respect to the next argument of accused being 'punished twice' it was argued by Ld. SPP that the fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed by the Department in terms of Clause 29 of the agreement and not under the FSS Act 2006. Thus in view of the above submission by the complainant the argument of accused no. 2 does not sustain.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel then questions the mode of testing adopted by the PA in detecting the presence of food colours. It is argued that the report does not mentions the test adopted in view of Section 46(3) of the Act and that gas Chromatograph test is the only sure test to detect colors.
19. The court does not find merit in the said submissions. It is to be understood that reports of chemical experts are admissible in evidence without formal proof under Section 293 Cr.P.C But that does not mean that such report cannot be Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.12.20 Page No. 14/2017:23:28 +0530 CC No:- 3652/2017 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. questioned on any point on which it is silent. If the accused wishes such reports to be clarified or questioned, he has an option available to him to apply to the court under Section 293 Cr.P.C and cross- examine the experts. Despite such option being available, if the accused fails to exercise the same, he cannot then chose to question the report on assumptions, presumptions and hypothesis, without according any opportunity to the examiner to clarify or explain the things. The court cannot impose its own views and refuse to disbelieve a report of PA or CFL, without giving the analysts any opportunity to explain any point on which the report is silent. In the present case, the report of PA has already been superseded by the Certificate of the Director, RFL. In such a case, there is no reason why the accused persons did not opt to cross- examine the RFL analyst and ask him about the method used by him to detect synthetic colour. The accused cannot be allowed to take benefit of his failure to apply and cross-examine the RFL when this opportunity was available to him. This was obviously not the job of the prosecution as the report of the RFL is admissible is evidence and is rather final and conclusive as to the facts stated therein. In Richpal v. State (Delhi Administration) [1988 (2) DLT 422] and Mohd. Hussain v. State (Delhi) [1989 (1) FAC 206}, it was observed that "the contents of the CFSL report have to be treated as correct and in case defence wanted to challenge the said report, the defence should have prayed to the Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.12.20 Page No. 15/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 17:23:41 +0530 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. trial court for calling the expert with the record for the purposes of cross-examination to enable the defence to prove that the contents of CFSL report are in any manner incorrect."
20. The next defence put forth by the accused is that the food article was not for sale but was only for use with patties. Section 26 of the FSS Act requires that no FBO shall store or distribute any article of food which is unsafe or sub-standard. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tondon Etc in support of his arguments. However a careful reading of the said judgment makes it clear that the terms 'store and distribute' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court would include such food articles which are meant to be used along with the food articles intended for sale. In the present case also it is an admitted fact that the Tomato Sauce was stored and was for use along with patties and other food items sold at the Tea Stall. Thus the argument of the accused that the same was not for sale and hence no offence is made out, as such cannot be accepted.
21. It is also argued by the accused persons that the bottles in which the sample was lifted was not made clean by the FSO and some color was sticking on it at the time of drawing sample. It is pertinent to mention that the testimony of prosecution Digitally signed NABEELA by NABEELA WALI Page No. 16/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI Date: 2022.12.20 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. 17:23:52 +0530 witness describes the manner in which the sample article was collected and both the witnesses during their examination-in-chief have stated that after mixing the sample commodity the same was divided into four equal parts and put in four clean dried plastic bottles. During cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion put forth by Ld. Counsel for the accused that some color was sticking to the bottles. PW-2 has also denied the said suggestion and has stated that the bottles were brand new. Thus mere suggestion that the sample bottles were not clean without leading any evidence to prove the same does not help the defence of the accused.
22. It is also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that no person from public was made a witness and that PW-2 is a stock witness. The requirement of adding witness to the proceedings flows from the procedure prescribed for taking sample as per 'Mannual for FSO' relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, which under Chapter 7 Clause E(a) mentions that FSO has to make arrangements for one or more witnesses at the time of lifting of the sample. However Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Prasad & Anr v. State (2002) (2) Crimes 63 (SC) has held that it is know fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Date:
WALI 2022.12.20
17:24:02
+0530
Page No. 17/20
CC No:- 3652/2017
FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.
Furthermore "... In Ashraf Ali Vs. State (Delhi) 1991 SCC 203, it has been observed that:− "The testimony of a witness is not to be disbelieved or discarded on the ground that the he happens to be an official witness but it is an equally well recognized rule of caution that Court should look for independent corroboration to the testimony of official witness in such cases. Relevant, of course, in the context are the time and opportunity available to the police party to associate with such an independent witness. It is a matter of common knowledge that no public person would like to involve himself by becoming a witness of recovery. Minor contradictions are bound to occur if a witness is examined after a considerable time..."
23. There is no rule of law that requires the evidence of food officials to be viewed with any suspicion. What is required is that attempt is made to join public persons as witnesses as a matter of prudence. The court is not oblivious of reluctance of public persons to join such legal proceedings that involves lengthy procedural formalities and strict future commitments. But non joining of such witnesses would not negate the testimony of official witnesses when they are otherwise truthful and credit worthy and have withstood the test of cross-examination. No motive has shown to exist giving them reason to depose falsely against the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriram Labhaya v. MCD [1948-1997 FAC (SC) 483] has categorically held that testimony of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, is sufficient to convict the accused and there is no requirement of independent corroboration by public persons unless the testimony Digitally signed NABEELA by NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2022.12.20 Page No. 18/20 17:24:12 +0530 CC No:- 3652/2017 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. suffers from fatal inconsistencies. No such inconsistency can be seen in this case. No violation of any rule or provision has been pointed out by the defence.
24. Also as per the report of RFL which is PW1/K, the sample was found to be sub-standard as the total soluble solids and acidity was found to be below the minimum prescribed sample. No contentions has been made by Ld. counsel for the accused regarding the said finding of the RFL.
25. No other stand has been taken by the accused at the trial or during the arguments advanced. No questions have been raised during trial or at the time of arguments about validity and correctness of the sanction to prosecute as given by the Director PFA.
26. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and not to prove the case beyond all remotest probabilities and possibilities. Of course there are several defences available to the accused, but the prosecution is not required to rule out all the said remote possibilities and defences under the Sun which the accused might claim at the trial. If any specific defence has been taken by the accused, it would be for the accused to establish the same by either pointing out the defects / Digitally signed NABEELA by NABEELA WALI Page No. 19/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 WALI Date: 2022.12.20 17:24:23 +0530 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors. infirmities in the prosecution case and / or by leading defence evidence. But the accused cannot claim that all the remote possibilities have to be ruled out by the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
27. In view of this discussion, it can be said that the complainant / prosecution has been able to establish its case and prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.Hence both the convicts namely Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Ramanand Gupta and Shamshad Begum W/o Sh. Haffej Ulla are hereby convicted for violation of Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) r/w Regulation No. 3.1.2(6) punishable u/s 59 of FSS Act. Further they are also convicted for violation of Section 3(1)(zx) r/w Regulation No. 2.3.27 punishable u/s 51 of the FSS Act.
28. Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 20th December, 2022 This judgment contains twenty pages and each page is signed Digitally signed by NABEELA by me. NABEELA WALI Date: WALI 2022.12.20 17:24:41 +0530 (NABEELA WALI) ACMM-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI/ 20.12.2022 Page No. 20/20 CC No:- 3652/2017 FSO(Northern Railway) Vs. Pankaj Gupta and Ors.