Delhi District Court
Da (Fso) vs Satbir Singh on 4 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR,
ACMM-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 42802/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 18.10.2014
3. Name of the complainant : Food Safety Officer Department of Food Safety Govt. of NCT of Delhi 8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
4. Name, parentage & address : Satbir Singh of the accused S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar Singh M/s Rewari Sweet Center WZ-1676, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.
R/o D2/19, Vinod Puri, New Delhi-110045.
5. Offences charged for : Section 26(2)(i) r/w Section 3(i)(vii) and (viii) of FSS Act punishable under Section 59(i) of the FSS Act, 2006
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Order reserved on : 25.08.2023
8. The final order : Accused is convicted
9. The date of judgment : 04.09.2023 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:23:58 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.1 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 26/59 OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 PROSECUTIONS' VERSION
1. It is the case of the Department of Food Safety that on 18- 10-2014, Food Safety Officer Bal Mukund along with FSO Sh. Hukum Singh visited the premises of M/s Rewari Sweet Centre, WZ-1676, Nangal Raya New Delhi-110046 and found accused/ FBO Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar having stored/selling/exposed various food articles meant for sale for human including "Boondi Laddoo" at his shop. The "Boondi Laddoo" was lying in an open tray bearing no label or declaration.
2. Then, the Food Safety Officer Bal Mukund disclosed his identity to accused and after inspection of the shop, showed his intention of taking a sample of "Boondi Laddoo" for analysis, to which the accused agreed. Thereafter, the Food Safety Officer tried to associate some public witness by requesting passersby, neighbouring shopkeepers and customers but no came forward, then the FSO requested Sh. Hukum Singh FSO to which he agreed.
3. Thereafter, at about 1:00 PM, Food Safety Officer purchased a sample of "Boondi Laddoo" food article for analysis from Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar ( Food Business Operator), which consisted of Approx.2 Kg of "Boondi Laddoo"
Digitally signed by ABHISHEKABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:24:07 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.2 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh (ready for sale) at a price of Rs. 240/- only. The amount was paid in cash to the FBO vide receipt dated 18/10/2014.
4. After the purchase of the sample, it was broken into very small possible pieces with help of clean and dry spoon in another clean and dry tray and mixed it properly with help of same spoon in the same tray. Then, it was divided equally in four parts by putting it into four clean and dry glass bottles. Thereafter, 40 drops of formalin was added with help of clean and dry dropper in each counter part of sample bottle. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the sample was taken as per order and direction of the Designated Officer Sh. P.N. Khatri.
5. Thereafter, each counterpart containing the sample was separately marked and fastened up and sealed according to the Food Safety Act / Rules & Regulation. Then, the Designated Officer (DO) slip bearing the code number, signature and official stamp of the DO was affixed on each counterpart of the sample. Further, Labels were also pasted on each of four sample counterparts and the FBO had also signed all four labels affixed on each of the four sample counterparts. The FBO also signed on each counter part of the sample in such a manner so as to appear partly on the designated officer slip and partly on the wrapper of the bottle containing the sample. Then, a notice in Form VA was prepared which was signed by the Food Safety Officer Bal Mukund and witness FSO Sh. Hukum Singh and also by the Food Business Operator Sh. Satbir Singh. It is also stated in the complaint that the copy of this notice was given to Food Business Digitally signed Operator vide his acknowledgement on the notice. ABHISHEK KUMAR by ABHISHEK KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:24:17 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.3 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh
6. Apart from that panchnama was also prepared at the spot. Further, all the documents were prepared by the Food Safety Officer, which were read over and explained in Hindi to Food Business Operator Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar who signed on the same after understanding it. It is also averred in the complaint that FBO did not make any request to FSO regarding sending one part of the sample to the accredited laboratory as per Section 47 of the Act.
7. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing Designated officers code No.09/DO-09/5235 in intact condition along with copy of memo in Form VI and another copy of Memo form VI in a sealed cover were sent separately to the food analyst, Delhi on 19/10/2014. The other two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of memo in Form VI were deposited with Designated Officer Sh. P.N Khatri on 19/10/2014. The fourth counterpart along with copy of memo in Form VI was also deposited with the Designated Officer Sh. P.N Khatri in intact condition in a sealed packet on 19/10/2014.
8. Further, the Food Analyst vide his report No FSS/1035/2014 dated 31/10/2014 has reported that the sample is unsafe because total dye content of the synthetic colour used exceed the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm. Accordingly, the Designated Officer concerned sent a copy of the Food Analyst report to the Food Business Operator on 20-11-2014 for giving him an opportunity to file an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst under Section 46(4) for sending one part of the Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:24:24 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.4 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh sample to the Referral Lab, if so desired by him. The FBO preferred an appeal against the report of Food Analyst and one counter sample was sent to Referral Food Laboratory for analysis.
9. Thereafter, the report of RFL was received by the department and the Certificate of Director Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore No. 295F/FSSA/2014 dated 06/03/2015, reported the sample as "Unsafe" as defined under Section 3(1) (zz)(viii) of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 as it does not confirm to the standards laid down for food article under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules 2011. It was mentioned in the report that the added artificial colouring matter exceeds the maximum permissible limit of 100 ppm (section 3.1.2.6(ii) &3.1.2.7).
10. It is also stated in the complaint that investigation was conducted by FSO Bal Mukund and found Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar Singh FBO Cum Proprietor of M/s Rewari Sweet Centre, WZ- 1676, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046 as at the time of taking sample, he was looking after its day-to-day business and as such he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business. After the conclusion of the investigation, the entire case file including the statutory documents, Food Analyst's report and the Food Safety Officer report were sent by the Designated Officer to Commissioner, Department of Food Safety Govt. of Delhi, who accorded consent under Section 42(4) of the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006, and directed the FSO to institute the prosecution in the designated Court of ordinary Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:24:34 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.5 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh jurisdiction of the FSS Act. Therefore, the present complaint was filed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
11. Upon filing of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence under Section 26 and 59 of the FSS Act, 2006 was taken. The examination of the complainant was dispensed with, as he was public servant and complaint was filed in his official capacity. Accordingly, summons was issued to the accused.
12. Upon service of summons, accused entered his appearance before the Court and was admitted to bail as offences were bailable in nature.
13. Thereafter, notice was framed against the accused under Section 26(2)(i) r/w Section 3(i)(vii) and (viii) of FSS Act punishable under Section 59(i) of the FSS Act, 2006, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for Prosecution Evidence.
14. During the prosecution evidence, the department has examined 4 witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity. Accordingly, Final arguments were heard and matter was kept for orders.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04
17:24:43 +0530
Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.6 of 17
FSO Vs. Satbir Singh
15. During the prosecution evidence, four witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Bal Mukund, PW2 Sh P.N Khatri, PW Sh. Suniti Kumar and PW4 Sh. Hukum Singh were examined. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by the accused.
16. PW1 Bal Mukund has filed the complaint before the court and has deposed on the same line as mentioned in the complaint. He identified his signatures on the complaint which was exhibited as PW1/N and referred to the following documents filed in support of the complaint:
(a) Payment receipt of Rs 240 for buying sample L(Ex.
PW1/A)
(b) Notice in Form no. V-A (Ex. PW1/A)
(c) Panchnama. (Ex. PW1/C)
(d) Raid Report as per clause 4(iii)(h) of Rule 2.1.3 of FSS
Rules,2011. (Ex. PW1/D)
(e) Receipt of sample deposited with Food Analyst. (Ex.
PW1/E)
(f) Receipt of samples sent to DO. (Ex. PW1/F)
(g) Food Analyst report. (Ex. PW1/G)
(h) Letter regarding copy of FA report sent to FBO. (Ex.
PW1/H)
(i) Form VIII regarding appeal against FA report by accused.
(Ex. PW1/H1)
(j) Report of the Referral Food Laboratory. (Ex. PW1/I)
(k) Letter sent to FBO during investigation. (Ex. PW1/J)
(l) Response letter by FBO. (Ex. PW1/J-1)
(m) Letter sent to VAT officer ward no.60 to ascertain
constitution of business and reply (Ex. PW1/K1) Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04
17:24:52 +0530
Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.7 of 17
FSO Vs. Satbir Singh
(n) Letter to MCD. (Ex. PW1/L)
(o) Sanction order. (Ex. PW1/M).
16.1 During cross examination, the witness has stated that food article was mixed by him in the tray with a spoon which were provided by the FBO himself in clean and dry state. He also stated that they were not made further clean or dry at the spot as they were already supplied in clean and dry state. He has stated similarly regarding the state of sample bottles being clean and dry as provide by the department. He denied the suggestion that some yellow colour was already sticking to the sample glass bottle. The witness also stated that formalin used was not expired and denied the suggestion of its being expired. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not join the public witnesses.
17. PW2 P.N Khatri has deposed that on 18.10.2014, he was posted as DO and had directed on that day, FSO Bal Mukund and FSO Hukum Singh to conduct general raid in New Delhi District.
Further, after taking sample of Boondi Ladoo, the FSO had deposited two counterparts alongwith two copies of Form VI in intact condition in a sealed packet and another copy of Memo in Form VI in a separate sealed cover with Food Analyst on 19.10.2014. The fourth counterpart was also deposited with him as FBO did not request to send the same to Accredited Lab. The witness identified his signatures on receipt of sample already Exhibited as PW1/F. He also identified his signatures on raid report Ex.PW1/D. The witness also deposed that he received the PA report Ex.PW1/G. The witness further identified his signatures on the letter Ex.PW1/H for giving intimation to FBO Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:00 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.8 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh for appeal with copy of FA report. He also identified signatures on form Ex.PW-1/H1 filed by accused for preferring appeal. The witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
18. PW3 Suniti Kumar has deposed that on 09.12.2014, he was looking after the charge of DO and the present file was marked to him. He had sent the file to FSO Bal Mukund for further investigation. He further deposed that on 18.12.2014, the accused appeared before him for sending one counterpart of sample to RFL. Since he has sought the sample from previous DO and thus, directed accused to appear again on 24.12.2024 vide endorsement Ex.PW3/A. He had received report from RFL on 10.03.2015 vide letter Ex.PW3/B. He also forwarded the complete file after investigation to Commissioner, Food safety, who accorded sanction.
18.1 The witness during cross examination has stated that the application for challenging FA report was not made to him and he did not compare the reports. Further, admitted that sanction does not have date below the signature of commissioner. He denied the suggestion that if the sanction does not mention the date, the same would be invalid.
19. PW4 Hukum Singh has deposed on the same lines as PW1, being part of the same team for conducting the raid. He has also proved the documents already Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D in support of the case by identifying his Digitally signed by signatures upon them. ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:07 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.9 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh 19.1 The witness during cross examination stated that Formalin was not expired at the time of putting the sample into the bottle. He denied the suggestion that the formalin was not expired at the time of sample proceedings. He also stated that tray and spoon were clean and dry and not made clean at the spot. He denied the suggestion that some yellow colour liquid was already lying in the sample bottles.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
20. The statement of the accused was recorded on 22.07.2022. In his statement, he denied to all the incriminating evidence being false and stated that utensils used in the sample proceedings were not cleaned and dry. Further, both reports of FA and RFL were at variance. He also stated that yellow colour was already sticking with the spoon used in the sample proceedings and some yellow colour was also lying in the sample bottle.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT
21. The Ld. SPP for the department has argued that all the essential requirements of the act stand duly proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the report of the FA as well as RFL has proved the existence of synthetic colour beyond prescribed limit. Also, variance in the reports will be of no consequence as the report of the RFL supersedes the report of the FA. He also stated that report of RFL also supports the case of the department. The Ld. SPP for the department concluded the arguments by stating that the proceedings of sampling and reports stands duly proved Digitally signed and accused is liable to be convicted. ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:16 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.10 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
22. The counsel for the accused has emphatically stated that the case of the department and sample proceedings conducted by the FSO suffers from material defect as the tray, spoon and bottles used during sampling were not made clean & dry at the spot and some yellow colour was already there in these utensils. He has referred to the following judgments in support of his contention.
i. Koyakutty Vs. Food Inspector, 2000 (2) FAC 238 passed by Kerala High Court;
ii. Delhi Administration through Designated Officer Vs. Rattan Lal in Crlp No.42/2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
iii. C.D. Patel, Food Inspector Vs. Popatlaljivaji Thakor, 2005(1) FAC 46 passed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court; iv. Food Inspector, Department of PFA Vs. Zahid, 2014 (2) FAC 524 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court; v. Sunil Agarwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & 2 others, 2014 (2) FAC 526, passed by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and vi. Delhi Administration Thr. Designated Officer Vs. Kishan /Lal Nagpal (Crllp No.207/2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
22.1 He further argued that the reports of the FA and RFL were at variance and thus, these reports cannot be relied upon as it goes to the root of the case and reflects that samples were not Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR lifted proper.KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:23 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.11 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh 22.2 In rebuttal, the Ld. SPP for the complainant further argued that the grounds raised by Ld. Counsel for accused regarding nature of test conducted by RFL is without any consequence as despite opportunity being granted to him, he failed to call Director, RFL and cross-examine him and that he cannot question the report, which is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. on the basis of presumptions. He further stated that once report of RFL is received, no credence can be accorded to the report of public analyst in view of mandatory provision of Section 13 of FSS Act.
23. I have gone through the record and given due thought to the submissions made by parties before me. Before proceeding further, it will be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law involved in the present case for ready reference, which are as follows:
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;
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; (v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; (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; (viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof.
Regulation No.3.1.2(1) provides that unauthorized addition of colouring matter prohibited-The addition of colouring matter to Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:31 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.12 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh any article of food except as specifically permitted by these regulations is prohibited;
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.
Regulation No.3.1.2(7) deals with Maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours - The maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours or mixture thereof which may be added to any food article enumerated in regulation 3.1.2(6) and Apendix A of these Regulations shall not exceed 100 parts per million of the final food or beverage for consumption, except in case of food articles mentioned in clause (c) of regulation 3.1.2(6) where the maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours shall not exceed 200 parts per million of the final food or beverage for consumption.
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 ABHISHEK Digitally signed by ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:25:39 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.13 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh
24. The incriminating material on the basis of which the sample of "Boondi Laddu" had been failed by the Food Analyst and later on RFL, is that as per the reports, the sample was unsafe as excessive artifical food colouring matter was found in the sampled food article which is not permissible as per rules.
25. In so far as visiting of the shop of FBO by FSO and consequent lifting of sample of "Boondi Laddu" is concerned, there is no challenge on behalf of accused that the sample of "Boondi Laddu" was not lifted as per the rules and regulations prescribed under the FSS Act. Testimony of PW-1 Sh. Bal Mukund vividly describes the manner in which sample article of "Boondi Laddu" was collected from the shop of the accused. His testimony is on the similar lines as the complaint Ex. PW1/N and there is no serious rebuttal on various exhibits pertaining to sample collection proceedings.
26. The defence has not been able to rebut or bring any credible evidence on record to show that the spoons or the bottles in which the sampled food article was collected, were not clean and dry, as has been suggested by them during the cross- examination of the witnesses. Further, merely stating so during the cross-examination of witnesses without adducing evidence on record to corroborate the said suggestions is not enough to rebut the evidence brought forth by the complainant, which per se is admissible as per law. Also, the contention that the utensils and sample bottles were not made clean at the spot are not in derogation to the FSS regulations, 2011, where the requirement is to ensure that the utensils used shall be clean and dry. The Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 Cr Cases 42802/2016 17:25:52 +0530 Page No.14 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh judgements relied upon by the accused are not applicable with respect to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the said orders have been passed with respect to peculiar situations which does not arise in the instant case. The evidence brought on record clearly shows that when the samples were lifted, they were clean and dry at relevant time including the sample bottles. There is no cogent evidence or circumstances on record to infer that some yellow colour liquid was there in the bottles at the time of the taking of the sample.
27. Second contention raised on behalf of accused is that there is vast variation between the report of Food Analyst Ex. PW1/G and that of RFL Ex. PW-1/I. As per the report of public analyst the sample article was found containing colors i.e. tartrazine and sunset yellow FCF to the tune of 221.82 ppm as against maximum prescribed limit of 100 ppm. While as per the report of RFL the sample article was found containing same colours with one more colour Carmoisine-BDL to the tune of138.1 ppm. It is thus argued by Ld. Cousnel for accsued that one of the sample was bound to be not representative. This argument of Ld. Counsel appears to be compelling, however, the controversy in this regard has been put to rest by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Delhi Administration v. Vidya Gupta, Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2018, Date of Decision 24 April, 2018 the following paras of which are worth reproducing:
"... 11. Once the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory reaches the Court, the report of the Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it. In the above context the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13 can also be looked at which deals with the evidentiary value of such certificate. If a fact is declared by a statute as final and Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:26:00 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.15 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh conclusive, its impact is crucial because no party can then give evidence for the purpose of disproving that fact. This is the import of section 4 of the Evidence Act. Thus the legal impact of a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is threefold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned.
12. The finding of the High Court that the variation between the two reports was 0.76% and therefore more than 0.3% as permitted in Ram Singh's case (supra) is completely unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The reliance placed by the High Court on the decisions in Kanshi Nath v. State and State v. Mahender Kumar and Ors which hold that if in the comparison of the reports of the PA and the Director vast variations are found, then the samples are not representative, is improper. Those decisions do not lay down good law..."
28. In light of the principle expounded in the above-mentioned judgment, there is no doubt that once FBO/accused preferred an appeal against the report of public analyst, the report filed by RFL will obliterate and supersede the report of public analyst. Whatever are the variations in the report of RFL Ex. PW 1/I from that of public analyst Ex. PW1/G, the former will have precedence over the later. Also, the contention that one more colour was detected in the report of the RFL will not change the fact that on both occasions when samples were analysed, the colors i.e. tartrazine and sunset yellow were found to be exceeding the permissible limit of 100 ppm. Thus, this contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that the sample of food article was not representative or additional colour was found does not pass any muster.
29. It has been thus, conclusively proved that the sampled food article of ' "Boondi Laddu" contained added artificial colouring Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:26:08 +0530 Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.16 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh matter to the tune of 138.1 ppm, which is beyond maximum prescribed limit of 100 ppm and is unsafe for human consumption. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidences brought on record, it is seen that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was selling a food article which was unsafe for human consumption.
30. The accused Lekhraj is therefore, convicted for the violation of provisions of Section 26(2)(i) r/w Section 3(1)(zz)
(vii)(viii) of FSS Act 2006 r/w Regulation No. 3.1.2(6)(ii) of FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additions) Regulations, 2011, punishable u/s/ 59(i) of FSS Act, 2006.
31. Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court on 4th September, 2023 This judgment contains seventeen pages and each page is signed by me.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.04 17:26:18 +0530 ( Abhishek Kumar ) ACMM-01/PHC/New Delhi Cr Cases 42802/2016 Page No.17 of 17 FSO Vs. Satbir Singh