Delhi District Court
Da vs Narender Pal & Others on 2 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-II,
NEWDELHI
C.C. N0. 158/93
DA Versus Narender Pal & Others
U/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
JUDGMENT
a. The Serial number of the case : 158/93
b. The date of the commission of the offence :21.12.92
c. The name of the Complainant, if any : LHA, S.K. Nanda
d. The name of the accused and his parentage : (4) R.T. Sharma
S/o Sh. P.L.
Sharma, M/s
Nilgiri Cheese,
Canal Colony,
Ferozpur, Punjab.
e. The offence complained of or proved : u/s Section 2 (ia)
(a) (m) punishable
under Section16 (1)
read with section 7
of the PFA Act.
f. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. The final order :Acquitted
h. Arguments heard on :02.02.2010
i. judgment announced on :02.02.2010
Brief statement of the reasons for such decision-
1. The present complaint is filed by the Delhi Administration through Local Health Authority Sh. S.K. Nanda against the above said accused persons, alongwith accused No.1 Narinder Pal S/o Sh. Brat Pal, M/s Oriental Fruit Mart, 23 E, Connaught Place, New 2 Delhi ( since expired and proceedings against him were abated ); accused No. 3 P. Rajan, M/s Nilgiri Cheese, Canal Colony, Ferozpur ( who was declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 13.5.98 ) & accused No. 5 H.S. Bedi, M/s Nilgiri Cheese, Canal Colony, Ferozpur ( since discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 30.09.98 ), for prosecution of the offence under section 7/16 of th Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act)
2. The complainant has submitted that on 21.12.92 at about 4:30 p.m., Food Inspector, Anil Kumar Dhir purchased a sample of 'Hard Cheese ( Cheddar Cheese)', a food article for analysis from Narinder Pal S/o Sh. Brat Pal at the premises of M/s Oriental Fruit Mart, 23-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi , where the said food article was found stored for sale for human consumption. The accused Narinder Pal was found conducting the business of the shop. The sample consisted of 600 gms of Hard Cheese (Cheddar Cheese ) which was taken from the freezer wrapped in polythene. The sample of Cheese was cut into small pieces with the help of a clean and dry steel knife in a clean and dry steel tray. The pieces of cheese were mixed uniformly with the same knife and thus the sample was properly homogenized. The Food Inspector divided the sample then and there into three equal parts and put them in separate clean and dry bottles and 16 drops of formalin were added to each bottle containing the counterpart of the sample. The bottles containing the sample were separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. Vendor's signatures were obtained on the paper slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice was given to the accused Narinder Pal and 3 the price of the sample was also given to him. The Panchnama was too prepared. All the documents were prepared by Sh. A.K. Dhir , Food Inspector and were signed by the accused Narinder Pal and the other witness Sh. V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food Inspector. Before starting the sample proceedings efforts were made to join the pubic witnesses but none came forward. The sample was taken under the supervisions of LHA S.K. Nanda. One counter part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst in intact condition and two counter parts were deposited with the LHA in intact condition. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on 06.01.93 and found that the sample does not conform to standard because Moisture exceeds the prescribed maximum limit of 43% and milk fat of dry matter is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 42%.
3. After the conclusion of the investigation, the entire case file including the statutory documents and PA's report and the report of the FI was sent to the Director (PFA) Delhi Administration, Government of NCT of Delhi who accorded consent under Section 20 of PFA Act for institution of the case and authorised Sh. S.K. Nanda, Local (Health ) Authority to file the present complaint.
4. The accused are allegedly to have violated the provisions of Section 2 (ia)(a)(m) punishable U/s 16(1) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and Rules.
5. Summons of the case were served upon the accused and pursuant thereto he had appeared before the court. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for contravention of provision of Section 2 (ia) (a) (m) punishable under Section 16 (1) read with section 7 of the PFA Act 4 was framed against the accused persons separately on 30.9.98 to which they pleaded not guilty.
6. In support of its case, complainant examined PW-1 F.I. A.K. Dhir; PW-2 Sh. S.K. Nanda, LHA & PW-3 F.I. V.P.S. Chaudhary & PW-4 Sh. Bhupender Singh, Record Senior Clerk from Excise & Taxation Department, Ferozpur, Punjab.
7. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 26.08.09 wherein they have controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against them while submitting that they are innocent and preferred to lead evidence in their defence and examined Sh. Pawan Kumar as DW-1.
8. As per section 2(ia)(a) of PFA Act, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be.
9. As per section 2 (ia)(m) of PFA Act, an article of food is said to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health.
10. It is true that the mensrea in the ordinary or usual sense of this term is not required for proving an offence defined by Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is enough if an article of adulterated food is either manufactured for sale or stored or sold or 5 distributed in contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. Nevertheless, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what was stored or sold was food.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS.
11.I have heard both the sides at length and have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. The SPP has argued that as the case is well proved and the accused is liable to be convicted. Ld. Defence counsel for accused No.4, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that accused No.4 was only Accountant in the firm M/s Nilgiri Cheese and he was not Proprietor of the firm.
Whether the accused No.4 was Proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese.
12. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused No.4 was that the accused No. 4 was not the proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese, Canal Colony, Ferozpur, Punjab but it was Sh. H.S. Bedi , who has been discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the vendor also informed the complainant witnesses that he purchased the sample commodity from M/s Nilgiri Cheese, whose proprietor was Sh. H.S. Bedi.
13. It is a matter of record that vendor Narender Pal i.e accused No.1 expired during the proceedings, and accused No. 5 H.S. Bedi was discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 30.09.98. Admittedly, Sh. R.T. Sharma is prosecuted as proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese , as sample commodity was allegedly supplied by 6 M/s Nilgiri Cheese to vendor. Therefore, the short controversy to decide is whether Sh. R.T. Sharma was proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese and as such incharge and responsible for supply of sample commodity.
14. PW-1 F.I. A.K. Dhir who lifted the sample deposed that accused Narender Pal ( since expired ) disclosed that the said cheese was supplied to him by P. Rajan i.e accused No. 3 , ( now Proclaimed Offender ) and authorised representative of M/s Nilgiri Cheese and Sh. H.S. Bedi , a retired Colonel is the proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese and Narender Pal i.e vendor gave him three letters of M/s Nilgiri Cheese i.e Ex.PW1/L1 to L3 which were signed by Sh. H.S. Bedi as Proprietor. He further confirmed in his cross-examination that Sh. R.T. Sharma i.e accused No.4 was prosecuted only on the basis of reply of Excise & Taxation Officer, Ferozpur, Punjab, by which he was shown as a proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese. Thus, as per the testimony of PW-1, the vendor informed him that Sh. H.S. Bedi was the proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese who supplied the sample commodity to him vide Bill Ex.PW1/D and also provided the letters signed by H.S. Bedi as Proprietor but accused No.4 was prosecuted as it was informed by the office of Excise and Taxation , Ferozpur, Punjab that Sh. R.T. Sharma was the proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese. However, PW-4 Bhupender Singh, senior clerk from the office of Excise and Taxation , Ferozpur, Punjab , confirmed in his cross- examination that he was residing at ferozpur for the last 30 years and had seen Nilgiri Cheese Factory and Colonel H.S. Bedi is the owner of the said factory. He further confirmed that the cheese factory installed in the agricultural farm of Colonel H.S. Bedi and he had seen Colonel Harpal Singh Bedi many times in the factory working as a owner. He further confirmed that Sh.R.T. Sharma i.e accused No. 4 was working 7 as Accountant of Colonel Harpal Sigh Bedi. The testimony of PW-4, senior clerk office of Excise and Taxation , Ferozpur, Punjab , is sufficient to demolish the case of the complainant against accused No.4. Thus, as per the record of Excise and Taxation , Ferozpur, Punjab, as deposed by PW-4 Bhupender Singh, senior clerk , Sh. R.T. Sharma was working as only Accountant.
15. In view of above reasons and findings, I am of the considered opinion that Sh. R.T. Sharma was not the proprietor of M/s Nilgiri Cheese as such was not incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of M/s Nilgiri Cheese. In result, accused No. 4 stands acquitted of the charge. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to the record room and shall be revived as and when accused No.3 becomes traceable.
Announced in the open court. ( S.K. MALHOTRA ) Dated: 02.02.2010 ACMM-II/NEW DELHI.