Delhi District Court
Da vs Darshan Singh on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Cases No. 35424/2016
CNR No. DLND020066142014
Food Safety Officer,
Department of Food Safety,
Govt. NCT of Delhi. ...Complainant
Versus
Sh. Dharshan Singh,
S/o Shiv Narayan,
M/s Jagdamba Sweets,
RZ-290/17,
Tughlakabad Extension,
Delhi-110019.
Also at:
R/o A/74, Jaitpur Pahari,
Badarpur, Delhi-110044. ...Accused
1) The date of commission : 31.10.2013
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : FSO Ranjeet Singh
3) The name & parentage of accused : Sh. Dharshan Singh,
S/o Shiv Narayan,
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 26/51/59 of
FSS Act, 2006
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 11.03.2026
Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.1/18
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11
16:27:40
+0530
Date of Institution : 21.05.2014
Reserved for Judgment : 12.11.2025
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a complaint instituted under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'FSS Act') for violation of section 26, 51 and 59 FSS Act.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present complaint are that on 31.10.2013, FSO Ranjeet Singh visited M/s Jagdamba Sweets, RZ-290/17, Jagdamba Road, Tughlakabad Extn., Delhi along with Field Assistant, Sh. Rajpal Singh under the direction of Sh. Shyam Lal, Designated Officer, South-East District, where the accused Sh. Darshan Singh FBO-cum- Proprietor was found having stored 'Khoya Roll' for sale for human consumption and the food article was lying in an open steel tray bearing no label declaration. That the FSO disclosed his identity to the accused and after inspection of the food articles, he showed his intention of taking sample of 'Khoya Roll' for analysis to which the accused agreed. That the FSO tried to associate some public witnesses by requesting customers, passerby and neighboring shopkeepers, but when none came forward and then on the request of FSO, Sh. Rajpal Singh FA agreed and joined as witness in sample proceedings.
3. It is further averred that at about 12.30 pm, the FSO purchased a sample of 'Khoya Roll' for analysis from the accused. That the sample consisted of approx. 2 kgs of 'Khoya Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 Digitally FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.2/18 signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:27:51 +0530 Roll' and the sample was taken after cutting it into smallest possible pieces with the help of a clean and dry spoon and mixing it properly with the same spoon. That the sample was divided equally into four counter parts by putting approx. 500 gms of 'Khoya Roll' into clean and dry glass bottles making it as one counterpart of the sample and 40 drops of formalin was added into each sample bottle with the help of a clean and dry dropper. Each sample was gently shaken for proper dispersion of preservative. That the price of sample i.e. Rs. 400/- was also paid in cash to the FBO vide FBO receipt dated 31.10.2013 which he accepted.
4. It is further averred that each sample counterpart was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to FSS Act/Rules and Regulations. That Designated Officer's (DO) slip bearing the code number, signature and official stamp was affixed on each sample counterpart. That a label was also pasted on each of the four sample counter parts and the FBO has signed all the four labels affixed on each of the four sample counter parts. That a notice as per Form VA was prepared at the time of sampling which was signed by the accused/FBO, FSO and by the witness Sh. Rajpal Singh. That a copy of this notice was also given to the accused/FBO. That a panchnama was also prepared at the spot. That all the documents prepared by the FSO were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi who signed the same after understanding the same.
5. It is further averred that at the time of sampling, the accused did not make any request to the FSO for sending one counterpart of the sample to the NABL accredited laboratory for testing. That on 01.11.2013, one counter part of the sample Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.3/18 Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:28:00 +0530 bearing DO Code No. 10/DO-07/4326 in intact condition and in sealed packet with copy of the memo in form VI and another copy of memo in form VI in a separate sealed packet were sent to the Food Analyst Delhi. That the other two counter parts were deposited with the DO in intact condition in a sealed packet along with two copies of memo in form VI. That the Food Analyst analyzed the sample and found that the sample was unsafe because total dye content of the synthetic colour used exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm. The sample was also found to be containing aluminium leaves which were injurious to health.
6. It is further averred that after the receipt of Food Analyst Report, the DO sent copy of the Food Analyst report to the accused for giving him an opportunity to file an appeal against the report under Section 46(4) for sending one counterpart of sample to the Referral Laboratory, if so desired by him. That the accused opted for an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst and accordingly, second counterpart of the sample was sent to Referral Food Laboratory (RFL), Mysore. That RFL vide its certificate No. 18F/FSSA/2013 dated 04.03.2014 had given its report, as per which:
"As no specification is laid down for khoya Roll a prepared Food Article) under the Food Safety and standards( Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regur, 2011.the sample was analysed for General Provisions under the Act and Rules.
And I am of the Opinion that the sample is "Unsafe" as defined under section 3(1) (zz) (v) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as it does not conform to the standards laid down for Food Article under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules, 2011 thereof, in that:
a) Test for Aluminium foil is positive"Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.4/18
Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:28:10 +0530
7. That after conclusion of the investigation, Commissioner, Department of Food Safety accorded sanction under section 30(2)(e) of FSS Act. Hence, the present complaint was filed before this Court for violation of section 26(2)(i) of FSS Act read with Section 3 (1) (zz) (v) of the FSS Act, punishable under Section 59 (i) of the FSS Act.
8. Upon filing of the present complaint, cognizance was taken vide order dated 28.06.2014. Upon service of summons, appearance was entered by accused and after complying with the provision under section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 18.07.2016, notice for the offences under section 26(2)(i) read with section 3(i)(zz)(v) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
9. The prosecution examined FSO Sh. Ranjeet Singh as PW1 who deposed on the lines of the averments made in the complaint and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. PW1 has relied upon the following documents:
(i). Vendor's Receipt Ex. PW 1/A;
(ii). Notice in Form VI Ex. PW 1/B;
(iii). Panchnama Ex. PW 1/C;
(iv). Raid Report under clause 4(iii)(h) of Rule 2.13 of FSS Rules Ex. PW1/D;
(v). Receipt of deposition of samples with Food Analyst Ex.PW1/E, Ct.Digitally Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.5/18 signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:28:18 +0530
(vi). Receipt of deposition of counter parts of sample with DO Ex. PW 1/F;
(vii). Report of Food Analyst Ex. PW 1/G;
(viii). Letter sent to accused/FBO intimating about his right to appeal Ex. PW 1/H;
(ix). Report of RFL Ex. PW 1/I;
(x). Letter to VAT, Ward No. 90 Ex. PW1/J;
(xi). Affidavit of the accused/FBO Ex. PW1/K;
(xii). Sanction for prosecution Ex. PW1/L;
PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. Prosecution examined Sh. Shyam Lal, Retd. DO as PW-2 who deposed that on 31.10.2013, he was posted as Designated Officer in Department of Food Safety, Government of NCT of Delhi. That on that day, he directed FSO Ranjeet Singh and FA Rajpal Singh and FA Siya Ram to conduct general raid in Tuglakbad Extension, Delhi. That after taking the sample of 'Khoya Roll', FSO deposited two counterparts alongwith two copies of Form VI in intact condition in a sealed packet with him and another copy of Memo in Form VI in a separate sealed cover with Food Analyst on 01.11.2013. That as the FBO did not request to send the fourth counterpart of the sample for analysis from NABL Accredited Laboratory under Rule 2.4.5 of Food Safety and Standard Rule 2011, as such the fourth counterpart alongwith the copy of memo in form VI was also deposited with him in intact condition and receipt of the sample Ex. PW-1/F was issued. That he also signed the raid report on 01.11.2013 Ex. PW-1/D. That he received report of Food Analyst Ex. PW-1/G Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.6/18 Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:28:25 +0530 and thereafter, he sent intimation letter Ex. PW1/H alongwith the copy of Food Analyst report to accused/FBO Darshan Singh on 19.11.2013 for giving them an opportunity to file an appeal against the report of Food Analyst under Section 46 (4) and for sending one part of sample to the Referral Laboratory, if he so desired. That in response to the said letter the FBO/accused preferred an appeal against the report of Food Analyst. That the accused/FBO preferred an appeal by furnishing an application Ex. PW-2/A. That thereafter, one of the counterparts was sent by him to Director RFL Mysore alongwith the copies of the document including Form VI. That he received report from RFL, Mysore Ex. PW-1/I. That after completion of investigation, FSO submitted the report to him for grant of sanction of Commissioner Food Safety Department. That he put up the entire case file before Sh. Sohan Singh Kanawat, the then Commissioner of Food Safety Department and he issued the sanction order Ex. PW-1/L. That he was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures in official capacity. The witness identified the signatures of the then Commissioner, Department of Food Safety. That he instructed FSO Ranjeet Singh to file the complaint Ex. PW1/M in the present case. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that the sample seized was not representative of his product ans hence, contradiction between the reports and Food Analyst and RFL came out.
Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 Digitally FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.7/18signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:28:35 +0530
12. Thereafter, Ld. Predecessor of this Court, after hearing oral arguments, convicted the accused vide judgment dated 12.02.2020. The said judgment was challenged by the accused in appeal before Ld. Sessions Court and Ld. Sessions Court set aside the conviction of the accused and remanded the case for recording of additional evidence. The observations of Ld. Sessions Court are as under:
"12. Ld. CPP fairly submits that whether no test method is indicated in the AOAC, ISO, Pearsons, Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton, Joslyn, to test the presence of Silver and Aluminum, is a question of fact. In the absence of the journals, he is not in a position to answer whyInorganic Chemistry by Vogel has been adopted by the RFL, as also that this is a question to be answered by the Expert, who has applied the test.
13. Although, it is settled law that findings given by RFL cannot be questioned, but the report can always be questioned on why a particular method is adopted when, prima facie, it does not seem to be in consonance with rule concerned. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Nestle India Limited Vs. The Food Safety Safety and Standards, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4713 and more specifically, on paragraph no. 92, which is quoted hereinbelow for ease of reference:
There is no manner of doubt that this Court is not expected to see the correctness or otherwise of the reports given by the experts and, therefore, there cannot be any dispute regarding ratio of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent No.1. This Court, however, can see whether the samples have been properly analysed in terms of the mandatory provisions of the Act or not and, secondly, whether any reliance can be placed either on reports obtained by the Respondents or even for that matter on the reports obtained by the Petitioner. (Emphasis supplied)
14. In the present case, evidence would have to be led to show that the test method employed by the RFL falls within the exception provided in the Regulation 2.4.2(7). In my view, the burden to establish this from the very beginning is on the prosecution.
15. In any event, considering the aforesaid question of fact, which has arisen in the present case, I am of the view that additional evidence is required to be recorded. Therefore, the matter is being remanded back to the Trial Court, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence with aforesaid Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 Digitally FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.8/18 signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:07 +0530 direction."
13. Therefore, on the directions of Ld. Session Court, Director RFL was summoned by the complainant/Department for evidence. Accordingly, Sh. Dr. Devendra J Haware, Sr. Principal Scientist, RFL, Mysore was examined as PW-3 who was deputed by Dr. Giridhar P, Director, Referral Food Laboratory Mysore to depose in the present case. He deposed that he has examined more than 1000s of samples in the lab. That the RFL report dated 04.03.2014 Ex. PW1/1 was prepared by Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava, Director, Referral Food Laboratory Mysore. That as per report, the sample of 'Khoya Roll' was received in the lab on 10.02.2014 and the same was analyzed/examined and the sample was unsafe due to the presence of aluminium foil. That as per record, the sample was tested/analyzed as per 'Inorganic chemistry by Vogel'. That for the test of aluminum, they referred textbook of Vogel's of Quantitative Inorganic Analysis wherein the method of determination of aluminium at page No. 449 of Gravimetry XI, 25/26 is mentioned. The photocopy of the book Ex. PW3/1(running into three pages) was produced by the witness and the exhibition was objected by Ld. Counsel for the accused as original was not produced. That the then Director Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava, RFL had retired from the service and he had been deputed by the present Director. That he had worked with the then Director Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava and he was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures as he used to assign the work to him in official capacity. Th witness identified his signatures in the referral report Ex. PW1/1. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14. No other witness was examined by the Digitally Ct.byCase No. 35424/2016 signed FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.9/18 PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:15 +0530 complainant/department and thus, additional statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused stated that the report of RFL is illegal as the method adopted was not specified by law. The accused did not opt for leading defence evidence.
15. I heard the submissions of both the sides and perused the record.
16. It is the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the report of RFL determining the sample as 'unsafe' is illegal in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the test adopted by Director RFL i.e. 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel' is neither prescribed by FSSAI manual nor prescribed by other manual suchs such as AOAC/ISO/Pearsons/Jacob/IUPAC Food Chemicals/Codex/BIS/Woodmen/Winton/Joslyn etc. It is further submitted that PW3 could not specify the name of any international regulatory agency like FSSAI by which Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel has been validated. It is further submitted that complainant/department has not produced any evidence that the method of testing by Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel is validated and prescribed by FSSAI or any other international regulatory agency.
17. The prosecution has alleged that the accused has violated section 3(1)(zz)(v) of the FSS Act as per which the sample of 'Khoya Roll' was unsafe as it contained 'aluminium' which was not prescribed as an additive. Section 3(1)(zz)(v) of FSS Act reads as under:
"(zz) ―'unsafe food' means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health:--
.....
Digitally Ct. Case signed by No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.10/18 PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:22 +0530
(v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted;
....."
In the present case, the sample of 'Khoya Roll' was first analyzed by Food Analyst. However, on appeal of the accused, one part of the sample was sent to RFL and vide its report dated 04.03.2014, the Director RFL has opined that the sample was unsafe because total dye content of the synthetic colour exceeded the maximum limit of 100 ppm and the sample also contained 'aluminium' which was injurious to health. Since, the report of RFL has come on record, it would supersedes the report of Food Analyst. Reliance in this regard is placed on Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchant Association Vs. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 246 and MCD Vs. Bishan Sarup, ILR 1970 (1) Delhi 518. However, in Bishan Sarup (supra) it was held that the presumption attaching to the Certificates issued by the Directorate of CFL (RFL in the present case) is only in regard to what is stated in it, as to the contents of the sample actually examined by the Director and nothing more.
18. The food article in question is 'Khoya Roll' which a proprietary food article. The Food Safety And Standards (Food Products Standards And Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 as enforced in 2013 did not specify the standards for such proprietary food. The report of RFL has categorized the sample as 'unsafe' since 'aluminium' was found present in it. RFL has mentioned 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel' in the report as method of analysis. Apparently, method of analysis for detection of 'aluminium' has not been prescribed in the FSSAI Manual for Analysis of Metals. As per Rule 2.4.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, the manuals of the method of analysis Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 Digitally FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.11/18 signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:29 +0530 adopted/amended by the FSSAI or by AOAC, ISO, Pearson's, Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton and Joslyn shall be used from time to time, but in case the method for analyzing any parameter is not available in these manuals, a validated method of analysis prescribed by internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agencies, shall be adopted. The Rule 2.4.2 is reproduced as under:
"2.4.2. Analysis of food samples by Food Analyst
1. On receipt of the package containing a sample of food for analysis, the Food Analyst or an officer authorized by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression of seal received separately and shall note the condition of the seal thereon.
2. Food laboratories including mobile food laboratories wherever required, may be established or notified by the Central/State Government for the purpose of testing food samples received from the Food Safety Officer/ purchaser.
3. If the sample container received by the Food Analyst is found to be in broken condition or unfit for analysis, he shall, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such sample, inform the Designated Officer about the same and request him to send the second part of the sample for analysis.
4. On receipt of requisition from the Food Analyst pursuant to Rule 2.4.2 (3) the Designated Officer, shall by the succeeding working day, dispatch to the Food Analyst for analysis one part of the samples sent to him by the Food Safety Officer.
5. On receipt of the sample, the Food Analyst shall analyse or cause to be analysed the sample and send the analysis report mentioning the method of analysis. The analysis report shall be as per Form VII A and four copies of the same shall be sent to the Designated Officer under whose jurisdiction the Food Safety Officer functions or the purchaser of article of food. The analysis report shall be signed by the Food Analyst and such report shall be sent within fourteen days of the receipt of the sample by the Food Analyst.
6. The Designated Officer shall keep two copies of analysis report for further action, one copy shall be sent to Food Safety Officer for record and one copy to Food business Operator from whom the sample was taken. Provided that in case the sample cannot be analysed within fourteen days of its receipt, the Food Analyst shall inform the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety giving reasons and specifying the time to be taken for analysis.
7. The manuals of the method of analysis, as amended/adopted by the Authority from time to time including AOAC/ Ct. Case Digitally signed by No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.12/18 PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:38 +0530 ISO/Pearson's/Jacob/IUPAC/Food Chemicals CODEX/BIS/Woodmen/Winton-Winton/Joslyn, shall be used for analyzing the samples of food articles. However, in case the method for analyzing any parameter is not available in these manuals, a validated method of analysis prescribed by internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agencies, shall be adopted."
In the present case, the RFL has used 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel' to detect the presence of 'almunium' in the sample. To prove the RFL report, the complainant/department has examined PW3 Dr. Devendra J. Haware. In his testimony, PW3 no where specifies as to whether the method of analysis adopted for testing the sample was prescribed by the FSSAI or mentioned in AOAC, ISO, Pearson's, Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton and Joslyn or prescribed by internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agencies. During the cross-examination, he has simply stated that method which was adopted for testing, mentioned in the book 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel', was internationally recognized. Further, on a specific question that the 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel' for testing 'aluminium' was neither prescribed by FSSAI manuals nor by AOAC, ISO, Pearson's, Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton and Joslyn or by any internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agency, he simply evaded giving specific answer and answered the question as, 'It is wrong to suggest that Inorganic Chemistry book by Vogel is not validated book or validated method. It is further wrong to suggest that it is not internationally recognized.'
19. It is pertinent to mention that Rule 2.4.2 does not permit adopting a test mentioned in an internationally recognized book rather it specifically lays down that the method of analysis as prescribed in FSSAI manuals or by AOAC, ISO, Pearson's, Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 Digitally FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.13/18 signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:47 +0530 Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton and Joslyn or by any internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agency shall be used. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to show that the method of analysis adopted by RFL for testing the sample was one which was either prescribed by FSSAI manuals or by AOAC, ISO, Pearson's, Jacob, IUPAC, Food Chemicals CODEX, BIS, Woodmen, Winton-Winton and Joslyn or prescribed by any internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agency, which is the only requirement of Rule 2.4.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Therefore, as the report of RFL dated 04.03.2014 did not conform to Rule 2.4.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, it cannot be relied upon.
20. It is also relevant to observe that 'Inorganic Chemistry by Vogel' is a book and it itself is not a method of analysis, but Director RFL has specified it as method of analysis in its report dated 04.03.2014, which is factually incorrect. This aspect was also clarified by PW3 who deposed that test referred to as 'X1, 26 Aluminium' at page No. 449 of the book was adopted for detection of 'aluminium', which is no where mentioned in the report. It was held in Harshadkumar Somabhai Modi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2016 1 FAC 91 that if the methodology adopted while analyzing the sample are not placed before the court, the report cannot be accepted. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prahladdas Vs. State of M.P., 2019 1 FAC 80, wherein it was held that non mentioning of the methodology of analysis which is prescribed in Form III of FSS Rules goes to the root of the matter and accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such report. Similarly, in the Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.14/18 Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:54 +0530 present case, mentioning the book as method of analysis rather than the actual method used by Director RFL makes the report of RFL bad in law.
21. In view of the above discussion, the accused Darshan Singh is acquitted of the charge under section 26(2)(i) read with section 3 (i)(zz)(v) of FSS Act punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act.
The Illustrative charts of the witnesses examined, exhibited documents and material objects/muddamals in compliance of the judgment in Manojbhai Jetabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433 are annexed hereafter. Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Announced in open Court JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 On this 11th Day of March, 2026 16:30:03 +0530 (PRANAV JOSHI) ACJM-01/NEW DELHI PATIALA HOUSE COURTS Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.15/18 ANNEXURE I Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Witness Name of the Witness Description No. 1 Ranjeet Singh/PW1 Complainant 2 Shyam Lal/PW2 Official Witness 3 Dr. Devendra J. Expert Witness Haware/PW3 Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:30:14 +0530 Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.16/18 ANNEXURE II Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Name of the Witness Proved by/Attested by Ex. PW1/A FBO Receipt PW1 Ex. PW1/B Notice under Form VA PW1 Ex. PW1/C Panchnama PW1 Ex. PW1/D Raid Report PW1 Ex. PW1/E Receipt of deposition of PW1 samples with Food Analyst Ex. PW1/F Receipt of deposition of PW1 and PW2 counter parts of sample with DO Ex. PW1/G Report of Food Analyst PW1and PW2 Ex. PW1/H Letter sent to PW1and PW2 accused/FBO intimating about his right to appeal Ex. PW1/I Report of RFL PW1 and PW3 Ex. PW1/J Letter to VAT PW1 Ex. PW1/K Affidavit of the accused PW1 Ex. PW1/L Sanction for PW1and PW2 prosecution Ex. PW2/A Appeal preferred PW2 against the Report of Food Analyst Ex. PW2/A-1 Statement of accused PW2 given to DO Ex. PW3/1 Copy of book 'Inorganic PW3 Chemistry by Vogel' Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:30:24 +0530 Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.17/18 ANNEXURE III Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested by Exhibit Nil Nil Nil Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:30:32 +0530 Ct. Case No. 35424/2016 FSO Vs. Darshan Singh Page No.18/18