Delhi District Court
Food Inspector vs . Ashok Arora on 3 September, 2011
::1::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEWDELHI
Food Inspector Vs. Ashok Arora
Department of PFA S/o Shri Paras Ram
Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Goldee Store,
A20, Lawrence Road 1663, Chawla Bus Stand
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Najafgarh, Delhi
R/o: 696, Gali Chawla Gate
Najafgarh, Delhi
J U D G M E N T
Serial number of the case : 69/98 Date of the commission of the offence : 06.08.1998 Date of filing of the complaint : 28.08.1998 Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri S.K. Nanda, LHA Offence complained of or proved : S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of the Act of 1954;
punishable U/s 16 (1) r/w S. 7 of the
Act of 1954
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Arguments heard on : 03.09.2011
Judgment announced on : 03.09.2011
CC No. 69/98
DA Vs. Ashok Arora
::2::
Brief Statement of reasons for such decision
1. The present complaint was filed on 28.08.1998 by the Delhi Administration through Sh. S.K. Nanda, LHA against the afore named accused. It is averred in the complaint that on 06.08.1998 at about 2:30 PM, FI Sh. Pawan Bhatnagar purchased a sample of Mustard Oil, a food article for analysis from Sh. Ashok Arora, S/o Sh. Paras Ram of M/s Goldee Store, 1663 Chawla Bus Stand, Najafgarh, Delhi, where the said food article was found stored for sale and afore named accused was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The FI purchased approximately 375 gms of Mustard Oil, which was taken from an open Tin, bearing no label or declaration, after thoroughly mixing the same with the help of clean and dry Measure, which was lying in the Tin by rotating it several times in all possible directions. The FI divided the sample commodity into three equal parts by putting the same in three clean and dry glass bottles and each sample bottle was separately packed, fastened and sealed as per the requirements. The vendor's signature were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles as per requirements. Notice was given to accused and price was paid vide Vendor's Receipt dated 06.08.1998. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by FI were signed by CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::3::
said Sh. Ashok Arora (the vendor) and the witness namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar, FI, as no public witness had come forward for the purpose despite efforts.
2. The complaint further runs to the effect that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA code No. was sent to the PA, Delhi in intact condition and two intact counterparts were deposited with the LHA. The PA analysed and opined that 'the sample does not conform to the standards laid down under item No. A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 because the sample showed the presence of argemone oil'.
3. Further, it was revealed that Ashok Arora was the Vendorcum Proprietor of M/s Goldee Store (as above). Thereafter, the entire case file was sent to the Director PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 28.08.1998. Accused appeared and exercised his Right & Option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954. Consequent thereto, the second counterpart of the sample; as CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::4::
per the choice of the accused was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Director CFL vide Certificate dated 05.11.1998 opined that that sample of Mustard Oil was adulterated.
5. Charge for the violation of provisions of S. 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of the Act of 1954, punishable U/s 16 (1), r/w S. 7 of the Act of 1954 was framed upon the accused vide order dated 23.09.1998, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Two witnesses namely Sh. S.K. Nanda; LHA (PW1) and Shri Pawan Bhatnagar; Food Inspector (PW2) were examined on behalf of the complainant and the PE stood vide order dated 08.09.2009.
7. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 18.11.2009 wherein, the accused opted to lead defence evidence. One witness namely Shri S.N. Mahendru was examined in defence and DE stood closed vide order dated 29.03.2010.
8. File Perused. Counsels heard.
9. The present proceedings against the accused herein were initiated CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::5::
on the basis of PA Report dated 11.08.1998. It is opined therein that sample of Mustard Oil was found not conforming to the standards (Under Item No. A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955) because the sample showed presence of argemone oil therein. The accused was summoned vide order dated 28.08.1998. He appeared and exercised the option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954. The counterpart selected by the accused was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis vide order dated 22.09.1998. The Report therefrom was received in the form of Certificate of the Director CFL wherein, it is opined that the sample of Mustard Oil was adulterated. It has been shown 'positive' for argemone oil in the said Report of the CFL.
10. Thus, both the Experts are in concurrence with each other in concluding that the respective sample counterparts were found not conforming to the standards of Mustard Oil because of the presence of argemone oil in the sample commodity. The Report of the Director CFL is not only per se admissible but, is also the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Thus, undoubtedly and conclusively, it has been established per force the Report of the Director CFL that the Mustard Oil in question was 'positive' for adulterant called argemone oil. CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::6::
11. Both the prosecution witnesses i.e. FI Shri Pawan Bhatnagar and the Supervising Officer, LHA Shri S.K. Nanda have deposed extensively and on the dotted lines of the Complaint. PW1 Shri S.K. Nanda has inter alia deposed regarding the visit of the premises in question by the Raiding Party as on the day and time reflected in the Complaint, disclosing of identity and intention to lift the sample of the given commodity from the vendor / accused, purchase of the sample commodity against payment of the price vide Receipt Ex. PW 1/A, equal division of the sample commodity into three sample counterparts, packing; fastening and sealing etc. of the sample bottles, affixation of LHA slips and obtaining the signature of the vendor thereupon, Notice in Form VI vide Ex. PW 1/B and Panchnama vide Ex. PW 1/C. His deposition also covers the statement to the effect that the contents of all these documents were read over and explained to the vendor / accused, prior to obtaining his signature thereupon. Further, the two counterparts of the sample in question were deposited with the LHA by the FI as on 07.08.1998 vide Receipt Ex. PW 1/E, under intimation that one counterpart had been sent to PA, for analysis. He has proved the Report of the PA vide Ex. PW 1/F, which revealed that the sample was found having argemone oil present therein. The requisite Consent stands proved vide Ex. PW 1/G and the CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::7::
dispatch of Intimation Letter along with the copy of PA Report to the accused stands proved vide Ex. PW 1/K. The deposition as made by FI Shri Pawan Bhatnagar is somewhat on the similar lines and has the effect of corroborating that of PW1.
12. During the cross examination of both these witnesses, the entire stress remained on establishing that the presence of argemone oil in Mustard Oil, as shown and established by the Experts' Reports was not at all injurious to health. It has nowhere been agitated in defence that argemone oil was not present in Mustard Oil i.e the sample commodity. It has also not been disputed anywhere that the argemone oil would amount to be an adulterant, if it is found present in a food article like Mustard Oil. Moreover, the prosecution version has conclusively been affirmed vide Certificate of the Director CFL to the effect that the Mustard Oil was 'positive' for argemone oil. The provision as Under Item A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 in its SubClause (g) mandates that the Oil in question shall be 'negative' for argemone oil. Thus, the mere presence of argemone oil; irrespective of its quantity in terms of percentage, goes against the given provision and tentamounts to violation thereof as well as (the commission of) the offence under the Act of 1954. It is also worth mentioning that the Charge framed vide order dated CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::8::
23.09.2008 does nowhere indicate any sort of allegations to the effect that the commodity in question had been rendered 'injurious to health'. Thus, the defence put forth so as to establish that the presence of argemone oil in the given food article (as reflected in the Reports of the Experts), was 'not injurious to health', is rendered meaningless in the absence of there being any allegations to that effect. As far as the adulteration is concerned, that has conclusively been proved by the Report of the Director CFL. Accordingly, accused is hereby held guilty and convicted for the offence(s) alleged against him.
Be put up on 15.09.2011, for arguments / order on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court Raghubir Singh
on 03 September, 2011
rd
ACMMII/New Delhi
CC No. 69/98
DA Vs. Ashok Arora
::9::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEWDELHI Food Inspector Vs. Ashok Arora Department of PFA S/o Shri Paras Ram Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Goldee Store, A20, Lawrence Road 1663, Chawla Bus Stand Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Najafgarh, Delhi R/o: 696, Gali Chawla Gate Najafgarh, Delhi ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Shri Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for the Complainant.
Convict in person with Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate. Heard on the point of sentence. Ld. Counsel for convict has prayed for taking a lenient view on the ground that the convict is not a previous convict. It is further argued that he is the only bread earner of his family consisting of wife; aged mother; 2 college going children pursuing their PG Courses. It is also stated that the elder brother of the accused is mentally retarded and is dependent upon him. Wife of the Convict also remains ill as is suffering from various ailments.
On the other hand, Ld. SPP has argued that the convict does CC No. 69/98 DA Vs. Ashok Arora ::10::
not deserve any leniency as the offence committed by him has been proved beyond doubt and that such sort of adulteration is a menace to the society. It is also argued that the offences under the PFA Act are economic offences and should be dealt with suitably and that no one should be allowed to dupe the innocent mases and to make money by selling such adulterated articles.
Taking into consideration the submissions as summarised herein above, the convict is hereby sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default thereof convict shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. Fine paid.
At this stage, on request of the Ld. Counsel for the convict, he is admitted to bail on furnishing Bail Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount until the expiry of the appeal period. Bail bond furnished. Accepted.
Copy of the judgment as well as order on sentence supplied to the convict free of cost; against receipt.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Raghubir Singh
on 19 September, 2011
th
ACMMII/ New Delhi
CC No. 69/98
DA Vs. Ashok Arora