Da vs . Ravi Rajput Page 1 Of 54 on 15 May, 2014

[Cites 69, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Da vs . Ravi Rajput Page 1 Of 54 on 15 May, 2014

IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

C.C. No. 2006/09

COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant

Versus

Ravi Rajput
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh
M/s Sri Sahibji Dairy,
F265A, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi95
........ VendorcumProprietor

Serial number of the case : 2006/09
Date of the commission of the offence : 15.01.2009
Date of filing of the complaint : 26.11.2009
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Baljit Singh, Food Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act
1954, punishable U/s 16(1) (a) r/w
section 7 of the PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 1 of 54
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 15.05.2014
Judgment announced on : 15.05.2014

Brief facts of the case

1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2009 at about 05.30

p.m. Food Inspector Baljeet Singh and Field Assistant Bhopal Singh under the

supervision and directions of SDM / LHA Sh. Vipin Garg visited M/s Sri Sahibji Dairy,

F265A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi95, where accused Ravi Rajput who was the vendor

cumproprietor was found present conducting the business of sale of various dairy

articles including toned milk for sale for human consumption and in compliance of the

provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the Food Inspector collected / purchased the sample

of toned milk.

2. It is further the prosecution's case that the sample was sent to Public

Analyst for analysis and as per the report of Public Analyst the sample was found not

conforming to the standard of toned milk as per PFA rules 1955 as per tests performed

as the Milk solids not fat were less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5% and

accordingly after obtaining the necessary Sanction / Consent under Section 20 of the

Act the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m)

of PFA Act 1954 punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the Act.

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 2 of 54
3. After the complaint was filed, the accused was summoned vide orders

dated 26.11.2009. The accused after filing his appearance moved an application

under Section 13(2) of PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample

from Central Food Laboratory and consequent thereto second counterpart of the

sample as per the choice of the accused was sent to Director, CFL (Pune) for its

analysis vide orders dated 15.12.2009. The Director, CFL after analysing the sample

opined vide its Certificate dated 04.01.2010 that "sample does not conform to the

standards of Toned Milk as per PFA Rules 1955 as per tests performed". The Director

so opined as the milk solids not fat were found at 7.77% against the minimum

prescribed standard of 8.5%.

4. Notice for violation of provision of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act

1954 punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against the

accused vide order dated 03.03.2010 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

5. In support of its case the complainant/prosecution examined three

witnesses i.e. the then SDM/LHA Sh, Vipin Garg as PW1, Sh. Baljeet Singh, Food

Inspector as PW2 and FA Sh. Bhopal Singh as PW3 and thereafter PE was closed

vide orders dated 01.12.2012.

6. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 04.04.2013

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 3 of 54
wherein the accused claimed himself to be innocent. Despite opportunity given

accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:

7. PW1 Sh. Vipin Garg, the then SDM/LHA deposed that on 15.01.2009 he

was posted as SDM/LHA Seema Puri and on that day under his supervision and

direction FI Baljeet Singh and FA Bhopal Singh along with staff visited M/s Sri Sahibji

Dairy, F265A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi where accused Ravi Rajput was found

conducting the business of the said dairy including toned milk. He deposed that they

disclosed their identity and intention to lift the sample of toned milk lying in the open

drum bearing declaration as toned milk for analysis to which accused agreed. He

deposed that before taking the sample, FI Baljeet Singh tried his best to procure some

public witness by requesting some customers, passersby and neighboring

shopkeepers but as none agreed and on his request FA Bhopal Singh agreed and

joined as witness. He deposed that at about 05.30 p.m. FI Baljeet Singh purchased

1500 ml of toned milk taken from an open drum bearing label declaration as toned milk

after homogenizing the milk with the help of clean and dry measure of 500 Ml by

rotating it in all possible directions several times on payment of Rs. 27/ vide vendor's

receipt Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that FI Baljeet Singh divided the sample quantity into

three equal parts by putting them in three separate clean and dry bottles. He deposed

that 40 drops of formalin were added in each sample bottle by gradually shaking. He

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 4 of 54
deposed that each counterpart was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed

according to PFA Act and Rules. He deposed that LHA slip bearing his code number

and signatures were affixed on each counterpart and signature of vendor were

obtained on each bottle and accused signed the same in such a manner that his

signature appeared partly on the slips as well as on the wrappers. He deposed that

notice in Form VI Ex. PW1/B was prepared and a copy was given to the accused as

per his endorsement at portion A to A, bearing his signature at point A. He deposed

that Panchnama Ex. PW1/C was also prepared at the spot. He deposed that raid

report under Rule 9 (e) Ex. PW1/C1 was also prepared at the spot. He deposed that

all the documents Ex. PW1/A to C were prepared on the spot and read over and

explained to the vendor who after understanding the same signed at point A, witness

singed at point B and FI signed at point C respectively. He deposed that remaining two

counterparts of the sample in intact condition along with two copies of memo of Form

VII in a sealed packed were deposited with him on 16.01.2009 vide receipt Ex. PW1/D

with the intimation that one counterpart of the sample has already been deposited in

intact condition with the PA. He deposed that all the copies of memo of Form VII were

marked with impression of seal which was used to seal the sample counterparts. PA

receipt is Ex. PW1/E. He deposed that PA report Ex. PW1/F was received according

to which the sample was found nonconforming to standards mentioned therein at

portion X. He deposed that then on completion of the investigation by the FI the

complete case file along with all statutory documents were sent through him to the

Director (PFA) Sh. D.P. Dwivedi who after going through the case file applied his mind

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 5 of 54
and gave his consent Ex. PW1/G. He deposed that complaint Ex. PW1/H was filed in

the court by FI Baljeet Singh. He deposed that intimation letter Ex. PW1/I along with

PA report was sent to accused by registered post through him which was not received

back undelivered and postal registration receipt is Ex. PW1/J.

8. During his cross examination he stated that he does not remember how

many drums of milk were lying there at the time of sampling. He stated that he also

cannot tell how many drums were lying empty and how many were remained filled up.

He stated that there was about 30 litres of toned milk in the drum and the capacity of

the drum was about 40 litres. He stated that milk was mixed with the help of 500 Mlf

measure having a rod attached to the measure by the FI Baljeet Singh. He stated

that the milk was mixed by rotating the measure by clockwise and anticlockwise. He

stated that he does not remember how the milk was put into the sample bottles but the

same was put by the FI with the help of some measure. He stated that bottles were

already dry and clean and the same were not made again dry and clean at the spot.

He stated that he cannot say who made the bottles clean, same were supplied by the

PFA Department in packed condition. He stated that Food Inspector Baljeet Singh

filed the complaint as per his directions pursuant to the consent granted by the

Director, PFA. He denied the suggestion that sanction is bad in law. He denied the

suggestion that reports of the PA and the Director, CFL are divergent due to improper

method of sampling or different samples were sent to the different analysts or their

opinion were wrong.

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 6 of 54
9. PW2 FI Baljeet Singh and PW3 FA Bhopal Singh deposed on the same

lines as deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief.

10. This so far is the prosecution evidence in the matter.

11. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the Ld. defence counsel

as also the Ld. SPP for complainant. I have also carefully gone through the evidence

recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the

prosecution in this case.

12. From the deposition of the prosecution witnesses especially PW2 Food

Inspector Baljeet Singh whose testimony was duly corroborated by remaining

prosecution witnesses i.e. SDM/LHA and Field Assistant coupled with documents Ex.

PW1/ A to C i.e. Vendor's receipt, Notice Form VI and panchnama which bears the

signature of the accused as well as the admissions made by the accused during his

examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C while answering question no. 1, 2, 6 and 7 in

specific as recorded before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 04.04.2013 which are

admissible in evidence against the accused in view of sub clause (4) of Section 313

Cr. P.C as well as the law laid down in Benny Thomas Vs. Food Inspector, Kochi

2008 (2) FAC 1 (SC), Mohan Singh V. Prem Singh, (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)

842, Rattan Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (SC) 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 768, Sh.

Mith Kalitha V. State of Assam 2006 Cr. L.J. 2570, State of Rajasthan V.

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 7 of 54
Ganesh Dass 1995 Cr. L.J. 25 (Raj.), Bishwas Prasad Sinha V. State of Assam

2007 (1) Crimes 147 (SC), Anthoney Disuja V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC

258, State of H.P. V. Wazir Chand AIR 1978 SC 315 no doubt remains that the

sample of toned milk was indeed collected by the Food Inspector for analysis from M/s

Sri Sahibji Dairy of which the accused is the proprietor cum vendor.

13. During the course of arguments, Ld. defence counsel appearing for

accused argued that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt against

the accused. It was argued that the prosecution story suffers from various

loopholes /contradictions.

Public witness

14. At the outset it was argued that no public witness was joined by the FI

during the alleged sample proceedings which is in violation of section 10 (7) and

therefore the accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground alone. It was argued

that the FI despite the mandate of section 10 (7) did not deliberately join any public

person i.e. customers, neighbourers etc. in the sample proceedings and hence no

reliance can be placed on the alleged sample proceedings.

15. However I do not agree with the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence

counsel. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shriram Labhaya Vs. MCD 19481997 FAC

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 8 of 54
(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 suffers from fatal

inconsistencies. The Apex Court observed as "as stated earlier the Food Inspector

was unable to secure the presence of independent persons and was therefore driven

to take the sample in the presence of the members of his staff only. It is easy enough

to understand that shopkeepers may feel bound by fraternal ties............ Similarly in

Babu Lal Vs. State of Gujarat, 1972 FAC 18 it has been held that there is no

requirement of independent corroboration by public persons unless the testimony

suffers from fatal inconsistencies. Further reliance may be placed upon the law laid

down in Prem Ballabh Vs. State, AIR 1979, SC 56 , Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State

of Assam, 1999(2) FAC 180, MCD Vs. Banwari Lal 1972 FAC 655, MCD Vs. Pyare

Lal 1972 FAC 679 , Ram Gopal Aggarwal Vs. S.M. Mitra 1989(2) FAC 339,

Laxmidhar Saha Vs. State of Orissa 1989 (1) FAC 364, Food Inspector Vs.

Satnarian 2002 (5) SCC 373, Sukhbir Singh Vs. State 2002 (2) JCC 9 and State

Vs. Narayanasamy 1997 (2) FAC 203.

16. In Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. 2002 (1)

FAC 230, the Hon. Apex Court held as under:

".......9. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant adopted an
alternative contention that there was noncompliance with Section 10(7) of the Act
inasmuch as the Food Inspector failed to procure the signatures of independent
persons when he took the sample. The said contention is not available to the defence

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 9 of 54
as the Food Inspector has given evidence that he really called the persons who were
present in the canteen to affix their signatures after witnessing the sample but none of
them obliged. A three Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the legal position
concerning Section 10(7) of the Act in the case of Shri Ram Labhaya vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and Another 1974 FAC 102 : (1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases
491. We may profitably extract the observations made by Hon'ble Y.V. Chandrachud,
J. (as His Lordship then was):
"The obligation which Section 10(7) casts on the Food Inspector is to 'call' one
or more persons to be present when he takes action. The facts in the instant case
show that the Food Inspector did call the neighbouring shopkeepers to witness the
taking of the sample but none was willing to cooperate. He could not certainly
compel their presence. In such circumstances, the prosecution was relieved of its
obligation to cite independent witnesses.".

17. In Food Inspector Vs. G. Satyanarayan 2002 (2) FAC 102, the Hon.

Apex Court held as under:

".......Corroboration of the statement of main witness is not the requirement of
law but is only a rule of prudence.................
6. In the instant case, there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of
PW1 as is evident from the seizure memo and the receipt obtained for sale besides
the report of the public analyst. The mere fact that the other witnesses cited by the
prosecution had not supported the case of the prosecution was no ground to reject the
testimony of PW1. In this case courts below have adopted a hyper technical
approach to hold that there was no corroboration because there were minor
discrepancies in the statement of PW1 and the other witnesses. It is not the number
of witnesses but it is the quality of evidence which is required to be taken note of by
the courts for ascertaining the truth of the allegations made against the accused.
Section 134 of The Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is
required for proof of any fact. If the statement of PW1 itself inspired confidence and
the sample was found to be adulterated, the courts below should have returned a
finding on merits and not to dismiss the complaint allegedly on the ground of non
corroboration of the testimony of PW1.

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 10 of 54
State
18. In Vs. Mohd. Hanif, 1992 (2) FAC 175 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as under:

"It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need
corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is not
inherently suspicious nor be rejected on that ground........... His evidence is to be
tested on its own merits and if found acceptable, the Court would be entitled to accept
and rely on it to prove the prosecution case.".

19. In Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) FAC 131, it was held
as under:
"In our system of administration of justice no particular number of witnesses is
necessary to prove or disprove a fact. If the testimony of a single witness is found
worth reliance, conviction of an accused may safely be based on such testimony. In
our system we follow the maxim that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. It is
the "quality" and not the "quantity" of the evidence which matters in our system. This
cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence in a case has been given a statutory
recognition in Section 134 of the Evidence Act of 1872."

20. It is writ large from the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that FI Baljeet

Singh made sincere efforts to join the public persons in the sample proceedings but

none agreed. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It is very hard these days to get

association of public witnesses in criminal investigation/implementation of

administrative powers/enforcement of law seeking to curb anti social evils. Normally,

nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society.

Absence of public witness in this case is not fatal to the prosecution as the prosecution

story inspires confidence and lifting of the sample stands admitted/ unambiguously

proved. Furthermore, I find no reasons why the Food Inspector or the SDM would

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 11 of 54
falsely implicate the accused or depose falsely against him. There is nothing on

record to suggest that the FI, the SDM were inimical to the accused or had any grudge

or enmity to falsely implicate him.

Rule 14

21. It was also one of the arguments that there was violation of Rule 14 of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 at the time of sampling. It was

argued that at the time when the sample was collected, the Food Inspector failed to

clean the sample bottles, the jug with which the sample was poured in the bottles and

also the measure with which the milk was allegedly made homogenized. It was argued

that the sample bottles were not clean and dry and some water was already lying in

the bottles and because of this that the sample did not conform to the standards. It

was argued that Rule 14 of the Act is mandatory and not directory and in case there is

no strict adherence to Rule 14, benefit has to be given to the accused. Reliance was

placed on the law laid down in State of Gujarat Vs. Harumal Retumal and others

2008 FAJ 292 (Guj), Koyakutty Vs. Food Inspector 2000 (2) FAC 238 and Shew

Chander Mathur and anr Vs. State of Assam and anr., 1991 (1) FAC 9.

22. However I differ with the contentions as raised by the Ld. defence

counsel.

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 12 of 54
23. I have heard the Ld. defence counsel, gone through Rule 14 and the

case laws relied upon by the Ld. defence counsel and perused the deposition of the

Food Inspector and other complainant witnesses. After going through the material

available on record and the law cited by the Ld. defence counsel, I am of the opinion

that there was no violation of Rule 14 in this case. Rule 14 of the Act envisages that at

the time when the Food Inspector collects the sample, he shall ensure that not only the

container/bottle is clean but it is also dried. Furthermore the container should be such

so as to prevent any leakage, evaporation and in case of dry substance entrance of

moisture. The container should be sealed carefully to avoid the above. While

sampling the various types of articles of food, the Food Inspector should make use of

clean and dry appliances. He should use clean and dry spoon or other instruments

for sampling and avoid using his own hands to mix the same. Furthermore he should

sample the article in hygienic conditions. Reliance may be placed upon Varghese

Vs. Food Inspector, 1989(2) FAC 236.

24. I have perused the deposition of the Food Inspector and the other

prosecution witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses consistently and repeatedly

stated that the sample of milk was lifted after the milk was homogenized with the help

of a clean and dry measure by rotating the milk several times in all possible directions.

The witnesses categorically stated that the measure which was used for measuring

and mixing the milk, jug which was used for pouring the milk in the sample bottles as

well as the sample bottles were clean and dry. The witnesses during their cross

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 13 of 54
examination categorically denied that the bottles, the measure and the jug were not

clean and dry. They denied that some water or other substance was already lying in

the bottles or that they were not clean and dry.

25. From their deposition/statement no doubt remain that the sample

proceedings were conducted in a proper manner and that the sample bottles,

measure and the jug were clean and dry. I have no reasons to disbelieve them.

Nothing on record has been proved to the contrary i.e. the defence has not proved that

the Food Inspector did not comply with the provisions of the Rule 14. Just because

the defence is challenging the sampling process conducted by the Food Inspector /

asserting that Rule 14 was violated is not sufficient to either disbelieve or throw away /

outrightly reject the testimony of the Food Inspector. I have also gone through Section

114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 114 reads as under:

" The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to
have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of
the particular case."

Clause (e) of the above provision reads as under:
" That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed"

26. The above provisions and the legislation is based upon the maxim

"omnia praesumuntor rite esse acta" i.e. all acts are presumed to have been rightly

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 14 of 54
and regularly done. This presumption chiefly applied to official acts. It means that an

official act is proved to have been done, it would be presumed to have been regularly

done. The presumption under Section 114 (e) could only be nullified by clear and

cogent evidence to the contrary (State of Haryana Vs. Anil Kumar, 2004 (1)

Punj. LR 69 ,
Zeenat Vs. Prince of Wales & c, A 1971 P 43, Sheo Darshan Vs.

Assessar, 5 OLJ 179)".

27. In Rattan Lal Aggarwal Vs. State of Assam, 1993 Crl LJ. 2757

(Guh.) it was observed that irregularity is not to be presumed but a party alleging

it may prove it.

28. In the face of clear statement of the Food Inspector that he has taken the

proceedings of taking sample and sealing according to Rules, a presumption can be

drawn that the bottles were dry and clean [Nagar Parishad Alwar Vs. Ganga Lahiri,

1982 Cri LJ 2325, State of Assam Vs. Purammal Agarwalla, 1985 Cri LJ 46,

Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality Vs. Abdulla Haji, (1986) Cri LJ (Ker) 1

and Nirmal Kumar Vs. State, 1987 Cri LJ 46, 51
.].

29. In Jitendera Vs. State of M.P., 2002 (2) MPLJ 157 while dealing with

Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court observed that it is not a proper

approach to proceed with doubt or disbelief unless there is something to excite

suspicion. Same was observed in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 15 of 54
(2002) 5 FAC 234, Gujarat Vs. Manna Bhai Hasan Ali, 1999(1) FAC 243,

30. In Babu Bhai Hargovind Das Vs. State, 1970 GLR 530, it was

observed as under:

"It would not be unreasonable to assume that they would exercise those powers and
discharge those duties in accordance with these provisions.".

31. In Pyare Mohan Vs. The State 1972 FAC 79, it was further observed
by the Hon'ble High Court as under:

"there is no provision or requirement of law that the bottles must be sterilized at the
time of taking of the sample in the presence of the witnesses.". Similarly was held in
P.A. Anil Vs. Food Inspector 2009 (2) FAC 43.

32. Hence I am of the opinion that there was no violation of Rule 14 and

there was no infirmity in the sample proceedings.

Homogenization / Mixing of Sample.

33. It was also one of the arguments of the Ld. defence counsel that the

sample was not properly mixed / homogenized at the time when it was lifted and

accordingly the sample which were sent to PA and Director, CFL were not

"representative" and this is the reason why there is variations in the report of Public

Analyst and Director, CFL. For example the Public Analyst found the milk fat at 5.5% ,

on the other hand, the Director found the same to be 6.0 %. Similarly the PA found

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 16 of 54
the milk solids not fat at 8.12% whereas the Director found the same to be 7.77%. It

was argued that these variations prove that the sample were not representative.

Reliance was placed upon Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219 and State Vs.

Rama Ratan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 2012.

34. However, I find no merits in the contention of the Ld. defence counsel.

Firstly the Food Inspector and the other complainant witnesses categorically stated

that the sample was taken after mixing the toned milk properly. They categorically

stated that it was homogenized by rotating it in all possible directions several times

with the help of a measure. Once the milk was properly mixed several times by the

measure in the drum itself it was sufficient to make the milk homogenized.

35. Secondly, in State of Kerela Vs. Alassery Mohd. 1978 (1) FAC 145,

the Full Bench of the Hon. Apex Court observed as under:

"It was argued with reference to food analysis second edition by Manard

A. Joslyn that the sample must be a representative
sample ..........
are not
We

impressed by this argument at all . Representative sample has got a different

connotation, meaning and purpose in commercial transactions.......In our statue the

ingredient of offence is as mentioned in the 7th section of the Act, manufacturing for

sale, storing, selling or distributing any adulterated food. If the food sold to the food

inspector is proved to be adulterated, it is immaterial whether the sample

purchased by him is a representative sample or not of the entire stock in

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 17 of 54
possession of the person. A person who stores or sell such sample is liable to

be punished under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act.

36. In Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation Baroda Vs. Madan Lal

Ram Lal 832, SC on PFA (19481997) the Hon. Apex Court while dealing the case of

curd held that there is nothing in the Act or the Rules which requires churning/mixing

with the help of any instrument. The Court held that there is nothing in the Act to

suggest that churning by hand would not meet the requirements of the making the

sample homogeneous and representative.

37. In the case at hand sale to Food Inspector stands proved. The Food

Inspector categorically proved that he had made a payment of Rs. 27/ to the

accused/vendor towards the purchase of sample commodity. In this regard vendor's

receipt Ex. PW1/A was executed which bears the signature of accused at point A. The

testimony of the Food Inspector has gone unrebutted on this material particular. The

testimony of the SDM/LHA as well as the FA which is on the same lines have also

remained unchallenged. Hence sale to FI stands proved. The Hon. Apex Court in The

food Inspector, Calicut Corporation vs. C. Gopalan & another 19481997 FAC

(SC) 73 observed as "........when there is a sale to the Food Inspector under the Act of

an article of food, which is found to be adulterated, the accused will be guilty of an

offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act. In MCD

Vs. Shri Ail Das & Anr. 1975 FAC 223, Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court

CC No. 2006/09
DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 18 of 54
of Delhi held as "As was laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Madan Lal Vs.

State 1972 F.A.C. 481.........it must be held that if the respondents in the two appeals

were dealers in toned milk as such, they would be guilty of an offence under the Act notwithstanding the fact that they did not agree to sell the toned milk to the Food Inspector or to accept its price from him." In Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin Vs. UKK Hasan anr. 1982 (2) FAC 133, it was observed in para 5 as under:

"It is now well settled law and is also clear from the special definition of 'sale' in clause (xiii) of S.2 of the Act, that a purchase by Food Inspector for analysis is a sale under the Act (See Food Inspector Vs. Charkathil Gapalan 1971 (2), SCC 322, M.R. Ruparel vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 128, State of U.P. vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135 and Sarjoo Prasad vs. State of U.P., 1975 (1) FAC 221). If an article of food sold to a Food Inspector is proved to be adulterated, it is immaterial whether the sample purchased by him is a representative sample or not of the entire stock. "A person who stores or sells such sample is liable to be punished under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act" (see State of Kerela vs. Alassery Mohammad (supra).

It was further observed at para 6 as under:

"Therefore the question whether the sample taken by the Food Inspector is representative sample does not arise for consideration at all. How a sample would be representative must necessarily depend on the nature of the goods sold and the usual mode of supply to the customer when he comes to purchase. If there is normally a practice of stirring and mixing when the food stuff concerned is sold to customers from time to time representative sample would be that which is taken after such stirring and mixing. If on the other hand the usual mode of sale is to take portions by portions without any such stirring or mixing there can be no complaint that the sample sold is not a representative sample. Ice cream is a commodity which is not expected to lose its shape and form when the sale is effected. Ice cream when liquefied is no longer treated as ice cream. It will not be taken by a customer ice cream CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 19 of 54 then. It is too unreasonable therefore to expect that a representative sample of Ice cream could be taken by the Food Inspector only by stirring the entire mass of ice cream available for sale and taking the sample thereafter. Hence there is no justification to apply any rule of representative sampling"

38. In The Food Inspector Corporation of Cochin Vs. T.V. Hameed 1984 (1) FAC 47, while relying upon the law laid down by the Hon. Apex court in State of Kerela vs. Alassery Mohammad it was observed as under:

"It has to be remembered that any person, not necessarily the Food Inspector and not necessarily a government officer, is entitled to purchase an article of food from a vendor and send it for analysis provided he follows the procedure mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. If a private person purchases a portion of ice cream from the respondent under Section 12 of the Act and causes the sample to be analysed and if the sample is found to be adulterated, the vendor cannot turn round and find fault with the purchaser for not stirring the entire mass of the ice cream in the container or for not taking a section and stirring i before purchasing it. Equally so, at any rate, in the case of sale to the Food Inspector the vendor cannot come forward with such a complaint.

It was further observed:

"if the rule making authority backed by the expertise of such a committee (Central Committee for Food Standard) has not prescribed any particular manner of taking a sample of ice cream, I do not think it is for the court to lay down any such manner particularly a manner which is contrary to the ordinary course of business."

39. In Food Inspector Vs. Karingarappully, 1986 (1) FAC 238 relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Alassery's case 1978 (1) FAC 145 it was held as under:

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 20 of 54

"Neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision to the effect that the entire quantity of milk in the container in the possession of the vendor should be stirred before effecting the sale to the Food Inspector. If the normal mode of serving or selling a part of the milk contained in a larger container involves stirring the entire quantity, the vendor should have done it. If that is not the normal mode, that will not be done when the sale is made to the Food Inspector also."

40. Thirdly, the act has been enacted so as to prevent the adulterated food article being sold to the customers/consumers. It is a matter of common knowledge that when any customer goes to a shop to buy milk the vendor does not give the said food article/ milk after mixing the same with the help of a plunger/measure in the drum in which he has stored the same in his shop. He does not first rotate the said food article in all possible directions several times and then sell the same to the customer. He merely takes out the milk with the help of a measure or any other instrument from top most layer and sells it to the customer. Therefore when this is usual mode of selling the food article to the customers then why should a different mode be used for the purpose of sale to the Food Inspector. The act has been enacted for the purpose of protection of the customers/consumers of food articles and it is not sold to them by the shop owner after homogenization. Hence no question of making the food article homogenized should arise or else the entire purpose of act will be defeated. This is the reason why the PFA Act or the Rules nowhere provides for mixing of the food articles at the time when the sample is lifted by the FI. Variations.

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 21 of 54

41. Coming to the second limb of arguments of the Ld. defence counsel that there is a variation in the report of Public Analyst qua the report of Director, CFL and accordingly in view of the law laid down in Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005 (2) FAC 219 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the accused is entitled to acquittal as benefit has to be given to him for the variation in the two reports I find no merits in the same I am of the opinion that no question of variation can be looked into by the court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K. Saraf & Anr. 1999 (1) FAC 8, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. M/s Lahsa Restaurant & Ors., 1980 (II) FAC 1991, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Pralhad Bhai Amba Lal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) FAC 26.

42. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. M/s Lahsa Restaurant & Ors, decided on 01.04.1980 observed as under:

"Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act says that the certificate of the Director shall supersede the report of the Public Analyst. That being so no support can be taken from the report of the Public Analyst to content that there was a variation in the report of the Public Analyst and that of Director, CFL in his certificate. By this wholly erroneous approach the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in holding that the sample lifted was not a representative sample."

43. In Shriram Rikh Vs. State & MCD 1978(1) FAC 253, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 22 of 54

"that there is no doubt that the Public Analyst had reported that the sample contained 75% foreign extraneous matter, which constituted adulteration. On the other hand, there was the candid opinion of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory that the sample of Dhania powder was not adulterated. It is correct that there is wide variation in the two reports, but according to subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the report of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The Statute has clearly provided as to what value should be attached to the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory qua that of the Public Analyst. Thus the report of the Public Analyst loses all its value after supersession by the certificate of the Director......"

It was further observed in para 3 as under:

"Under Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is conclusive and binding and the Courts are bound to decide the case on the basis of that report only.".

44. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.S. Chettiar 19481997 FAC (SC) 627, held as "in the present case the certificate of the Director showed that the sample of Gingelly oil contained 6.2% of free fatty acid whereas the permissible limit is 3% only. We are not concerned with the Public Analyst's report since that has been superseded by the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory and the later certificate has been made conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in it.

45. In Nebhraj Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 19481997 FAC (SC) 633, the Hon. Apex court observed as " the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta having superseded the report of the Public Analyst the prosecution must stand or fall on the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory" CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 23 of 54

46. In Food Inspector, Ernakulam Vs. P.S. Sreenivasa 2000 (2) FAC 1, the sample of Toor dal was lifted and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found adulterated as it contained kesari dal. After the prosecution was launched one counterpart of the sample was sent to Director, CFL who did not find any Kesari Dal in the sample but found synthetic coal tar dye (tartrazine). The court held at para no. 13 as under:

"When the certificate superseded the Report of the Public Analyst the latter stands sunk to the bottom and in that place the Certificate alone would remain on the surface of evidence and hence that certificate alone can be considered as for the facts stated therein regarding the sample concerned".

47. In D.L. Chatterjee Vs. Kailashpati Oil Mill and others 2003 (2) FAC 240 the Hon. Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court which had quashed the proceedings and the Hon. Apex Court remanded the matter back for trial despite the fact that there was variation in the "contents and extent of adulteration of the food articles" in the report of the Director and the PA.

48. In State Delhi Administration Vs. Mahender Kumar 2012 (2) FAC 462, while dealing with case of adulteration of turmeric powder in the Hon. Apex Court held as:

".............The High Court so far the two reports are concerned held that the samples sent were unrepresentative. But the fact remains that the said issue was not at all raised and also considered by the appellant court nor it was raised before the trial court. It is also settled law that if there is any variation between the two reports, there would be primacy in the report submitted by the Director, Central Food Laboratory (CFL), which is clearly laid down under Section 13(3) of the Food CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 24 of 54 Adulteration Act.

9. Having considered the aforesaid aspect, we feel and order that the order of the High Court along with the order of appellate court have to be set aside, which we hereby do."

49. In Pralhad Bhai Amba Lal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) FAC 26, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchant Association Vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 246 and Chetumal Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1387 elaborately discussed the issue of 'variation' and held as under:

"Proviso to S. 13(5) also indicates that what is stated in the later certificate issued by the Director would be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated in the said certificate. It is obvious that the facts stated would be with respect to the result of the analysis by the Director and the findings reached therein regarding relevant ingredients of the part of the sample sent for analysis and analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Once this type of conclusive evidence emerges on record, whatever might have been contraindicated regarding the concerned ingredients of the sample as found in the prior report of the public analyst would be totally pushed out of the arena of contest and cannot be looked at. If that is so, there would be no question of considering any variance between the results of the tests carried out by the public analyst on the one hand and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory on the other visavis two parts of the sample sample. Any variation or variance between the different ingredients mentioned in these two reports would presuppose comparison between two existing reports on record. But if one of the reports is wholly pushed out of record as enjoined by S. 13(3) read with S. 13(5), there is no question of resorting to the exercise of comparison between the contents of these two reports with a view to finding out the supposed variance between the existing and operative report of the Director CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 25 of 54 and earlier report of the public analyst which has ceased to exist on record.".

"Once subsecs. (3) and (5) of S. 13 are kept in view, it is impossible to countenance the submission of the accused that despite these provisions, non existing report of the public anlayst can still be looked at for the purpose of finding out the alleged variance between the contents of that report and the superseding certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.".

50. In the above case while discussing the word 'supersede' which means to 'annul, to render void, obliterate, to repeal / to obliterate', the Hon'ble Full Bench held that once the report of Director is received the earlier report given by the Public Analyst is rendered ' obsolete ' and stands ' wiped out '.

51. In the above referred case while discussing and relying upon the Apex Court decision as reported in AIR 1981 SC 1387, the Hon'ble Full Bench further held as under:

"It was further observed that once supersession take effect, it is not permissible to rely on the report of the public analyst for the purpose of basing a conviction. That is so because the report of the Director is made final and conclusive. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision held that the public analyst's report stood superseded by the certificate of the Director and once the certificate of the Director was found to be unreliable, there would not remain on record any evidence on which accused could be convicted. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that even in a converse case where the accused claims acquittal on the ground of any important variance between the earlier report of the public anlyast and the later certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory which supersedes it, it would not be open to the Court to rely upon the contents of the superseded report of the public analyst for doubting correctness of the certificate issued by the Director.".

52. Similarly in State Vs. Kutubuddin Isafali, 1980 21(2) Guj LR 167 was CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 26 of 54 also observed as under:

"It is thus clear that the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory not only supersedes the one issued by the Public Analyst but it is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In this view of the matter, when there is report of Central Food Laboratory, the report of the Public Analyst will, for all practical purposes, treated as nonexistent. The report of the Central Food Laboratory will be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and the question, therefore, of any comparison of that report with the report issued by the Public Analyst which has already been superseded does not arise. There are statutory provisions and they have to be strictly complied with.".

53. In Salim and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1978 Cri LJ 240, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:

"It is correct that there is wide variation in the two reports, but according to subsec. (3) of S. 13 of the Act, the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the public analyst. The statute has clearly provided as to what value should be attached to the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory qua that of the public analyst. Thus, the report of the public analyst loses all its value after supersession by the certificate of the Director.".

In para 15 it has been further observed as under:

"It is the superseded report in which the learned trial Magistrate has tried to put life. For that matter, he called the public analyst and examined him as a Court witness. This procedure is not warranted by law. Instead of reviving the report of the analyst, he should have discarded the same.".

54. In MCD Vs. Ram Swarup 1976 (2) FAC 201, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:

"in the instant case whereas the public analyst found the presence of milk fat to the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 27 of 54 extent of 4.5% in the toned milk the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shows the milk fat as only 0.4%........Since under the law the report of the Director, CFL is conclusive and binding the case has to be decided on the basis of that report only.".

55. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Zahiruddin, 1972 FAC 134, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:

"11. It is ridiculous that the learned Magistrate should have compared the report of the Public Analyst with the certificate issued by the Director. Under Section 13(5) of the Act the certificate issued by the Director has to be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, although no such presumption attached to the report of the Public Analyst. The certificate granted by the Director cannot therefore be disregarded.".

56. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai Chand 1972 651, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:

"According to subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act, the certificate issued by the Director regarding the result of analysis shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. In view of the above provision, the discrepancy in the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Director loses much of its significance"

57. In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Amrik Singh 1972 FAC 204, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, held as under:

"Therefore, having regard to sub section (3) and subsection (5) of Section 13 of the Act it is not possible to take into account the report of the Public Analyst where a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has subsequently come on record in accordance with the provisions of Section 13. Consequently, it would not be correct to say that there was variation between the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director as the first report of the public analyst stands completely wiped out by the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 28 of 54 certificate of the Director.".

58. In Mangal Das Raghav Ji & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1976 (1) FAC 43, the six judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"The certificate issued by the Director would then supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. This certificate is not only made admissible in evidence under Sub Sec. (5) but is given finality to the facts contained therein by the proviso to that Sub Section".

59. In Hargo Lal Vs. State 1972 FAC 699, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that merely because there is a discrepancy between the report of the Public Analyst and the Director, CFL, it is no ground for rejecting the report of the Director, CFL as it completely wipes out the report of the Public Analyst.

60. In MCD Vs. Shri Manohar Lal & Anr., 1975 (1) FAC 182, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:

"This report was different in its import from the report of the Public Analyst but the variation in the two reports is of no consequence because the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under subsection (2) of section 13 supersedes the report of the Public Analyst given under subsection (1) of the said Section and as per proviso appended to subsection (5) is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.".

61. Similarly in Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Baldev Raj 1975 (1) FAC 363, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court observed at para 10 as under:

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 29 of 54

"The finality and conclusiveness is attached to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded entirely on wrong premises in comparing the reports.".

62. In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Shadi Lal 1975 (2) FAC 411, it was observed at para 5 as under:

"Subsection (5) of section 13 clearly envisages that once the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been obtained the report of the Public Analyst cannot be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. This being the position, it is not open to the accused to contend that it was inconsistent with the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Once the report of the Director has been obtained, for all intents and purposes the report of the Public Analyst is to be ignored, as it cannot be used as evidence of any facts stated therein.".

63. So once there is a report of Director, CFL on record, no reference can be made to the report of the Public Analyst. The report can not be looked into at all for the purpose of comparison and thus to show the variations, if any. In Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K. Saraf & Anr 1999(1) FAC 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

"12. When the statue says that certificate shall supersede the report it means that the report would stand annulled or obliterated. The word "supersede" in law, means "obliterated, set aside, annul, replace, make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal" (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.). Once the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory reaches the court the Report of the Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it.

13. In the above context the provisio to subsection (5) can also be looked at which deals with the evidentiary value of such certificate. The material portion of the proviso is quoted below:

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 30 of 54

"Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.........shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein."

14. If a fact is declared by a statute as final and conclusive, its impact is crucial because no party can then give evidence for the purpose of disproving the fact. This is the import of Section 4 of the Evidence Act which defines three kinds of presumptions among which the last is "conclusive proof". "When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another the court shall, on proof of the one fact regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it".

15. Thus the legal impact of a Certificate of the Director of 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.".

64. In The Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin Vs. T.V. Habeeb, 1984 (1) FAC 41, it was observed as under:

"It can thus be seen that it is settled law that the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the certificate of the Director which has conclusive effect also. Analysis in the two cases is done by different persons at different laboratories. It would not be surprising if, assuming the best conditions there is some difference in the results of the two analysis. Even in cases where sampling and analysis is done to the satisfaction of the most exacting standards, there could be variation in the percentage of different components arrived at in the two laboratories. But, once the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there is no report of the Public Analyst available in the eyes of law for comparison with the certificate issued by the Director. The court cannot, therefore, legitimately make such a comparison and conclude that there are divergences and therefrom draw an inference that the sampling must have been done improperly. To CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 31 of 54 arrive at such a conclusion would amount to flying in the face of settled position of the law and the terms of subsections (3) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act".

65. In Subhash Chander Vs. State, Delhi Administration 1984 (1) FAC 113 it was observed as under:

"For all purposes the report of the public analyst is replaced by teh certificate of the Director. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975 (1) FAC 186, Chetmal v. State of M.P., 1981 (11) FAC 280 and Jagdish Prasad v. State of Delhi, 1982 (I) FAC 345. Supersede is a strong word. It means obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void, inefficacious or useless, repeal. the Director's certificate supersedes the report given by the public analyst. Once superseded it does not survive for any purpose. It will be anomalous to hold that for some purpose it survives and for other purposes it is superseded.

66. In C. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) FAC 275, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction despite the variation in the report of the PA and the Director, CFL being more than 1.083% as the court held that the report of the PA stood superseded.

67. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. Bishan Sarup which was decided on 11.03.1970 held as under:

"It is thus patent that according to the proviso to subsection (5) of the section 13 of the Act, the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive as to the state of the sample on the date on which the analysis was made. Under subsection (3), this certificate supersedes the report of the Public Analyst given under subsection (1) of the section 13 of the Act.

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 32 of 54

68. In Bishan Sarup's case as referred above despite the variation being much more than .3%, the accused was convicted.

69. Hence, once the report of the Public Analyst becomes annulled / obliterated how can any reference be made to the same. No defence lying on the report is tenable in the eyes of the law. That is the mandate of the statute as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, merely because there is a variation no presumption can be drawn that the sample which was sent to Director, CFL was not representative. In fact no question of "variation" or the 'sample being not representative' can arise or be looked into by the court. As already discussed above that it is the mode in which the sample is sold to the customer/consumer which has to be kept in mind by the court. The sample is not made representative when it is sold to a consumer/customer by the vendor/shopkeeper. Hence he cannot complain that a representative sample was not taken by the Food Inspector or else if the said plea is allowed it will defeat the very purpose of the PFA Act. The court cannot legitimately make such a comparison and conclude that there are divergences and therefrom draw an inference that the sampling must have been done improperly or that the sample was not representative.

70. Moreover, I have perused the procedure / the rules laid down in the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 33 of 54 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to be followed by the Food Inspector at the time and after the sample is collected by him. As per Section 11 1(b), the Food Inspector has to divide the sample then and there in three parts and mark and seal or fasten upon each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken. As per Section 11 1(c) (i) & (ii) he has to send one of the part for analysis to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local Health Authority. As per Section 13 (2 A) upon an application by the accused, the court directs the sample kept by the Local Health Authority to be produced before him for its onward transmission to the Director, CFL for its examination / analysis as contemplated in Section 13 (2B). Once the sample is produced before the court, the court meticulously scrutinizes the sample to check whether the seal, thumb impression or signature on the same are intact or not. The sample is shown to the accused and upon his satisfaction it is sent to the Director, CFL. Hence, there arises no question of changing the sample because of the above mentioned counter checks as enumerated in the Act. Furthermore, when the sample is sent to the Director, CFL it is under the seal of the court and the Director in his certificate reports that the sample has been received by him intact as send by the court. Therefore, once the sample has been collected by the Food Inspector remains duly sealed, is inspected by the court and the accused for counter checking the seal and signatures of the accused and thereupon send to the Director, CFL under the seal of the court no question of the sample being changed or not being representative arises. Reliance may be placed upon Municipal Committee Amritsar CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 34 of 54 Vs. Lachman Dass 1978(1) FAC 211.

71. Furthermore, it can not be the intention of the legislature that the person who has been found selling, offering for sale, manufacturing etc food articles which have been found to be adulterated upon examination by a Public Analyst as well as by Director, CFL i.e. two independent authorities be allowed to go scot free merely because there is a difference or variation in the report of the Public Analyst & Director, CFL. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that once a food article has been found to be adulterated by two different agencies the accused may go unpunished solely on account of variance in the amount of / extent of adulteration. Doing so would defeat the entire purpose of the Act and shall have drastic consequences as adulteration of food is a menace to public health as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food (Isharpash Vs. State of Punjab 1972 CriLJ 874, Dayal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 CriLJ 2102.). In Murlidhar Meghraj Loya Vs. State of Maharashtra 1976 CriLJ 1527 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "any narrow and pedantic, literal construction likely to leave loopholes for the dangerous criminal tribe (adulterator) to sneak out of the meshes of the law should be discouraged".

Delay 72 It was also one of the arguments of the Ld. defence counsel that there CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 35 of 54 was an inordinate delay in the testing / analysis of the sample by the Director, CFL because though the sample was collected/lifted on 15.01.2009 it was analyzed by the Director, CFL after a gap of almost an year. It was argued that this delay occurred because of the lapses on the part of the prosecution as the complaint was filed in the court only on 26.11.2009 i.e. after almost 11 months. It was argued that if the report of the Director, CFL is only to be seen / relied upon as per the mandate of Section 13(3) of the PFA Act then no reliance can be placed upon the same because after a lapse of 1 year the sample of toned milk so collected by the Food Inspector would/must have been rendered unfit for analysis thereby causing grave prejudice to the accused. Reliance was placed upon the law laid down in State vs. Raj Kumar 2012 (2) FAC 351 and Gian Chand Vs. State 1978 (1) FAC 15.

73. However, I differ with the Ld. defence counsel. Firstly, no doubt the sample was collected on 15.01.2009 and the same was analyzed / tested by Director, CFL after a gap of almost 1 year, however, the fact remains that when the sample was sent for analysis the Director, CFL categorically opined that "the sample was in condition fit for analysis". Secondly, the Food Inspector and the other prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that at the time of sampling, the necessary preservative i.e. 40 drops of Formalin were added in each of the sample bottles. Thirdly, no evidence has been led by the defence that even after adding of formalin the sample would not have remained fit for analysis or that the Director's report was incorrect/false. Fourthly, when Formalin was added and there is a categorical CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 36 of 54 finding / opinion of the Director, CFL that the sample was fit for analysis, I have no reasons to presume or agree with the contention of the Ld. defence counsel that the sample when analyzed would have been rendered unfit for analysis on account of the delay.

74. In T.V. Usman Vs. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, Tellicherry AIR 1994 AIR SC 1818, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

"...mere delay as such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case even in cases where the sample continues to remain fit for analysis in spite of the delay because the accused is in no way prejudiced on the merits of the case in respect of such delay.

75. The "delay in sending the article to Director, CFL for analysis" on account of delay in filing of the complaint, the issue of 'shelf life of the sample product', the issue of 'best before and expiry period' has been elaborately dealt with in M/s Hyderabad Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of A.P. 2007 (1) FAC 110.

In para 63 of the judgment it was observed as under:

"Best before means that in all weathers it is to be used before six months. It is only recommendatory but not mandatory. Therefore, it cannot be said that the shelf life of the said beverage expires after the date of best before. Shelf life means the time for which a stored thing remains usable...........

.............The Public Analyst in all the cases after analyzing the sample bottle opined that the samples are adulterated, as they do not conform to the norms prescribed to the standards of quality. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is for the accused to question the said reports or lead evidence before the Court below as to how prejudice has been caused to them either because of the delay in launching the prosecution or CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 37 of 54 for any other reasons.....".

It was further observed in para 66 as under:

"Whether the sample remains fit for analysis or has become unfit can only be ascertained when it is, in fact, sent for analysis to Central Food Laboratory and it is certified as to whether the sample is fit or unfit for analysis. Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, read with Form II of Appendix A thereof, requires the Central Food Laboratory to certify, in its report, as to whether the sample of the food sent for analysis is fit or unfit for analysis and the reasons therefor. Whether a sample has, on expiry of its "Best Before" date or its shelf life, become unfit for analysis on account of its being decomposed is a matter of evidence and not a matter of inference........."

It was further observed in para 67 as under:

"In Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh 1972 FAC 545, the Supreme Court held thus: ......... "...........The Learned Magistrate was wrong in thinking that no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis by the Director. It was not for the Magistrate to decide without any data that the sample would be decomposed and was incapable of being analysed."

It was further observed in para 68 as under:

"In Charanji Lal Vs. State of Punjab 1983 (2) FAC 186 , the Supreme Court held "Whether a sample has decomposed or not can only be ascertained when the sealed container is opened in the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of analysis.... (Emphasis supplied)".

It was further observed in para 71 as under:

"An enquiry, as to whether the sample has decomposed, whether it is fit or unfit for analysis etc., is a statutory function required to be discharged by the Central Food Laboratory and not for this Court, in proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to presume that every case of delay in furnishing a copy of the Public Analyst's report, beyond the shelf life of the product, would either result in the sample becoming decomposed or cause prejudice to the accused."

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 38 of 54

It was further observed in para 72 as under:

"As held by the Apex Court in Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh 1972 FAC 545, Sukhmal Gupta, Charanji Lal 1983 (2) FAC 186 and T.V. Usman and this Court in G.S. Prasad 2002 (1) FAC 110 and Gangaiahnaidu Rama Krishna unless it is shown that the sample has been rendered unfit for analysis and the reasons therefor are on account of the delay in sending the sample for analysis and thereby prejudice has been caused to the accused entitling them to acquittal, mere delay in furnishing the report of the public analyst to the accused would not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution.".

It was further observed in para 73 as under:

"As held in T.V. Usman (1994 (1) FAC 1), there is no time limit prescribed for launching prosecution....................................................................................All these statutory provisions were held in Tulsiram 1984(2) FAC 146, Dalchand Vs. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal 1982 (2) FAC 29: AIR 1983 SC 303, State of Kerala vs. Alassery Mohammed, 1978 (1) FAC 145 : 1978 (2) SCC 386 and T.V. Usman 1994 (1) FAC 1: AIR 1974 SC 1818, to be directory and not mandatory. When no time limit is prescribed under the Act for launching prosecution and certain statutory provisions and rules, wherein timelimit is prescribed, were held to be directory and not mandatory, it cannot be said that mere delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, by itself and without anything more, is fatal to the prosecution."

It was further observed in para 74 as under:

"On what basis can Courts presume that expiry of the "best before" date of expiry of the shelflife of the product would, by itself, and without anything more, result in rendering the sample unfit for analysis?"

It was further observed in para 75 as under:

"Negligence of officials in discharging their functions, and in not promptly furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, must not result in offenders CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 39 of 54 involved in adulteration of the food/seed being permitted to go scot free, unless prejudice is established. Legitimate prosecution should not be scuttled on mere technicalities, in the absence of any proof of prejudice to the accused."

It was further observed in para 76 as under:

"In Dalchand 1982 (2) FAC 29 , the Supreme Court held thus: ".....It is well to remember that quite often many rules, though couched in language which appears to be imperative, are no more than mere instructions to those entrusted with the task of discharging statutory duties for public benefit. The negligence of those to whom public duties are entrusted cannot by statutory interpretation be allowed to promote public mischief and cause public inconvenience and defeat the main object of the statute........."

The court concluded / summed up its observation / findings in para 103 as under:

"5. "Best Before date", under Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, merely requires the manufacturer to indicate the period during which the product would remain fully marketable and retain its specific qualities. Explanation VIII (i) thereunder provides that beyond the "Best Before date", the food may still be perfectly satisfactory.

6. Expiry of the "Best Before" date or the shelf lift of the product would only enable a manufacturer to disclaim liability regarding marketability and the specific qualities of the product. Expiry of the shelf life would not automatically render the sample unfit for analysis.

10. Whether the sample is fit for analysis or has decomposed to such an extent as to render it incapable of analysis are all matters to be examined by the Central Food Laboratory.

11. It is only if the Central Laboratory certifies that the sample is unfit for analysis and this has resulted due to the delay on the part of the prosecution to furnish a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, can the accused be said to have suffered prejudice. (Ajit Prasad Ramakishan Singh 1972 FAC 545: (1972 Cri LJ CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 40 of 54 1026), Sukhmal Gupta, Charanji Lal 1984 Cri LJ 15, T.V. Usman 1994 (1) FAC 1 :

(AIR 1994 SC 1818), G.S. Prasad (2003 Cri LJ NOC 231) and Gangaiahnaidu Ramakrishna).

12. If the sample has not been sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory and the Central Laboratory has not certified that the sample has decomposed, rendering it unfit for analysis, mere delay in furnishing the report of the public analyst to the accused cannot, by itself, be said to have caused prejudice to the accused."

76. In Nestle India Ltd. Vs. A.K. Chand, Food Inspector, Kalahandi, 1996 (1) FAC 307, it was observed in para 7 as under:

"Section 13(2) of the Act confers a valuable right on the accused to prove his innocence by getting the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. It is the choice of the accused either to accept the Public Analyst's report or to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Under Section 13(3) of the Act, the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst. In case the sample is found by the Central Food Laboratory to be unfit for analysis due to decomposition, due to passage of time or any other reason attributable to the conduct of the prosecution, the valuable right as referred to above would stand denied. That would constitute in itself sufficient prejudice to the accusedso as to entitle him to acquittal. The Apex Court held so in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Ghisa Ram, 1975 (1) FAC 186. Delay in such cases plainly comes to the rescue of the accused. On the other hand, if the sample continues to remain fit for analysis inspite of the delay, the accused is certainly not prejudice notwithstanding such delay. Food adulteration is one of the most heinous crimes. It affects public health and no stones should be left untouched to prevent escape of any member of the adulterator tribe from the net of law.

8. Whether sample collected would be decomposed after a certain time would depend on the nature of commodity. As observed by the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu V. Shanmugham Chettiar and Ors, 1980 (2) FAC 187: Dhahu Behera V. Puri CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 41 of 54 Municipality and Anr, 1992 (1) FAC 101; and Chamurulal Agarwala V. State of Orissa, 1992(1) FAC 173 no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding any particular time after which sample would not be sent for analysis.".

77. In Kan Singh Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan 1978 (2) FAC 151, it was held as under:

"There is no material on the record to show that the sample of milk taken from the petitioner, to which formalin was duly added, was either decomposed or was in such a condition that it could not be analysed."

78. In Municipal Council Jaipur Vs. Bhuramal 1978(2) FAC 225, it was held in para 5 as under:

"It has now well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babu Lal Vs. State of Gujarat 1972 FAC 18 .............. Until there is evidence on record to show that the article of food had deteriorated by lapse of time or by addition of preservative in quantity of less than the one prescribed, it is very difficult for the court to say that the sample must have decomposed and become unfit for analysis. The learned Magistrate therefore, was clearly in the wrong when he observed that even if the accused had made an application as aforesaid it would only be a fruitless venture.".

79. Reliance may also be placed upon 2008 (1) FAC 17, 2007 (1) FAC 319 and 2007 (1) FAC 59 titled as M/s Handi Instant Foods, Chennai Vs. State of A.P. It was observed in para 12 as under:

" 12. In Gangaiahnaidu Rama Krishnan and others vs. State of A.P., 2005(2) FAC 249 .........held that it is for the accused to establish as to how the prejudice has been caused to him either because of delay in launching the prosecution or for any other reason."

80. In Tillo Ram Vs. State 1975 (2) FAC 36, it was held by the Hon'ble CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 42 of 54 High Court of Delhi as under:

"Delay in the test by the Public Analyst is the next point pressed. Here again, except for the bald assertion at the bar, it is not shown how this delay has prejudicially affected the trial. There is no evidence and not even a suggestion that the oil in question could, in the ordinary course, have deteriorated in quality during the few days that elapsed between the taking of the sample and its examination by the Public Analyst.".

81. In Shambhu Dayal Vs. State of U.P., decided on 21.11.1978 the Hon'ble of Apex Court while dealing with the case of adulteration in milk, observed as under:

"In the present case there is evidence of the Food Inspector that he added formalin as a preservative and the report of the Public Analyst that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis. This statement of the analyst was not challenged in any of the courts below. Apart from the statement of the Analyst not having been questioned in this case it is admitted that formalin was added to the milk by the Food Inspector...................... The High Court of Allahabad in Babboo Vs. State AIR 1970 All. 122 held that in the case of cow's milk to which the necessary quantity of formalin has been added according to Rules and which has been kept in normal circumstances, it retains its character and is capable of being usefully analysed for a period of about ten months. It is unnecessary for us to specify the period for which the sample will remain unaffected but so far as this case is concerned there is clear evidence of Public Analyst that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would interfere with analysis."

82. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Zahiruddin, 1972 FAC 134, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held "the question whether the milk was in a fit condition of analysis when analysed by the Director is a question of fact and it depends upon so many circumstances that in the absence of any evidence CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 43 of 54 about the condition of sample the Courts cannot lay down any artificial rule that after a certain period has lapsed it must be presumed that the sample was not fit for analysis even when the Director analysed it and gave a certificate. If the respondent wished to rely on matters with respect to which the certificate of the Director is not conclusive evidence it was his duty to have led evidence as to the matter in which the sample had been kept during the period it was sent to the Director".

83. In State of Kerala Vs. P.K. Chamu 1975 (2) FAC 417, it was observed as under:

"No hard and fast rule can be laid down that after the expiry of a certain period, a certain food stuff, even after the addition of formalin or other preservatives, becomes decomposed and unfit for analysis. It is not proper for a court to presume or conclude, unless there are relevant materials on record, that some change might have occurred to the sample due to long delay in sending a sample for analysis or the delay in the analysis. In the present case, the delay was in sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Requisite preservatives are added to the samples for preserving their constituents. Delay in sending a sample for analysis or the delay in the analysis is not per se a ground for doubting the correctness of the result of analysis."

84. In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Jagat Ram 1974 FAC 455 the sample of milk was sent for analysis to Director, CFL after more than 1 year and and 5 months. The sample was opined by the Director to be fit for analysis. Upholding the conviction of accused the court observed:

"The accused had utilized his right under section 13(2) of the Act of sending the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, whose certificate as mentioned above was against him. The sample did not deteriorate although it was sent about one year and five months after the taking of the sample. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the accused and, therefore, there was no justification for the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 44 of 54 Additional Sessions Judge to set aside his conviction on the ground of delay".

85. he hon. High Court of Delhi In Krishan Lal v. MCD 1984 (2) FAC 89 t after discussing in detail the Hon. Apex Court judgment in Ajit Prasad, Sukhmal Gupta and Ghisa Ram as well as the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon. High Court of Delhi in Bishan Swaroop and the Division Bench in Nand Lal's case observed at para 14 as under:

"From the aforesaid authorities what emerges out to be the legal position on this matter is that the defence can prove the deterioration or decomposition of the sample either by making an application for sending the same to the Director of Central Food Laboratory who can report about the same, or by proving otherwise by some satisfactory material that the sample had deteriorated or could otherwise deteriorate in normal course before he could exercise his right of sending the same to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis in which case it would be unnecessary to send the sample to the Director.

86. In the case at hand it is apparent from the report of Director, CFL that the sample when sent for analysis / at the time of its examination was fit for analysis / examination. It being not unfit for examination / analysis no prejudice can be presumed to have been caused to the accused merely on account of delay. Thus, it is only in cases where prejudice is caused to the accused on account of delay in institution of the prosecution that is to say the sample is decomposed / deteriorated or is rendered unfit for analysis by the Director, CFL then the benefit has to be given to the accused (Reliance may be placed upon The Apex Court's Judgment in Girish Bhai Dahya Bhai Vs. C.C. Jani 2009 (2) FAC 195).

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 45 of 54

87. The very fact that the Director, CFL opined the sample fit for analysis is sufficient safeguard for the court to convict the person upon the report of the Director, CFL. The Director's report that the sample was fit for analysis is a fact and there can not be any contrary presumption against the same. How can there be a presumption ( that a sample must have got decomposed, deteriorated or unfit for analysis on account of delay ) contrary to a fact in existence (Director's Certificate that the sample remained fit for analysis). The fact can only be disapproved or rebutted by way of positive concrete evidence. Otherwise any such presumption is contrary to the statute. The party who alleges that the sample was not fit for analysis has to prove that the sample was unfit by way of positive evidence and not by merely agitating that the sample was unfit or would have been unfit without even prima facie or basic proof of the same will not be sufficient to disbelief either the Director or his report. Unless the fact i.e. "sample was fit for analysis" is rebutted there can not be any presumption that it would have been unfit on account of the delay. Holding such / presuming such is not on the contrary to the law as well as the principle of jurisprudence.

Individual shortfall of milk fat and milk solids not fat and marginal deficiency

88. It was also one of the argument of the Ld. Defence counsel that as per report of the Director the total solids in the sample of toned milk so collected was CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 46 of 54 found at 13.77% whereas the minimum requirement is 11.5%. It was argued that the individual criteria/ parameters of milk fat and milk solids not fat is not to be seen but it is the total solids which have to be seen so as to form an opinion whether the milk is adulterated or not. Reliance was placed upon the law laid down in Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman and anr. 19481997 FAC (SC) 8. It was further submitted that marginal deficiencies have to be ignored. It was argued that in the case at hand Director found the milk solids not fat at 7.77% against the minimum of 8.5% i.e. only 0.73% short. Reliance was placed upon the law laid down in Ram Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (1) RCR Cri. 692 and Sakeel Vs. State of Haryana 2008 (1) FAJ 506.

89. However I do not agree with the contentions of Ld. Defence counsel. Firstly, it is specifically mentioned in Appendix B of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 i.e. A.11.01.11 that "the standards of different classes and designations of milk shall be as given in the table below. Milk shall conform to both the parameters for milk fat and milk solids not fat, independently, as prescribed in columns (4) and (5) of the said table". Hence it is not open to raise any contention that the sample of milk conformed to the standards as a whole (total solids) were as per the standards.

90. Secondly, in Babu Lal Hargovindas Vs. State of Gujarat 19481997 FAC (SC) 1084 the conviction was maintained by the Hon. Apex Court though the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 47 of 54 sample of milk was found containing non solids fat at 7.4% as against minimum of 8.5%. Similarly in Khem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 19481997 FAC (SC) 981 the Hon. Apex Court upheld the conviction though there was deficiency only in milk solids not fat. In Amatha Bai Arjan Bhai Vs. C.D. Patel and ors 1982 (2) FAC 113 the Hon. Apex Court upheld the conviction despite the variation/ deficiency from the standard being 0.5 percent only.

91. In Navratan Vs. State of Rajasthan 19481997 FAC (SC) 921 the Hon. Apex Court upheld the conviction though the sample of Chilly powder was found adulterated on account of it containing ash only marginally above the prescribed standard i.e. 1% excess than the prescribed limit.

92. In Umed Mal and Lalta Prasad Vs. State of Maharashtra, 19481997 FAC (SC) 553, the Hon. Apex Court upheld the conviction though the PA found "very marginal nature of adulteration".

93. In State of Orissa Vs. K. Rajeshwar Rao, 19481997 FAC (SC) 956 the Hon. Apex Court convicted the accused cum vendor though the sample of cumin (jeera) contained only 9% of foreign seeds as against the permissible limit of 7%.

94. In Umrao Singh Vs. State of Haryana 19481997 FAC (SC) 774 the Hon Apex Court upheld the conviction despite the deficiency in the fat contents of the CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 48 of 54 milk was only 0.4%.

95. In Bhagwan Dass Motu Vs. State of Maharashtra 19481997 FAC (SC) 912, the Hon. Apex Court upheld the conviction despite the total ash percentage in the sample of Dhaniaa was only "little above" the standard prescribed for Dhania.

96. In Haripada Das vs. State of West Bengal, 1998 (2) FAC 187, the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the conviction in a case of Mustard Oil wherein the saponification value was found only marginally above the prescribed standard i.e. 178.8 against 177. The court also observed "Though Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has strongly contended that such minor variation was likely to take place on account of natural process and it was the duty of the prosecution to establish that there was no such chance of little variation in the saponification value on account of natural process, we are not inclined to accept such contention for want of proper evidence to that effect."

97. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. Peela Ram 1975 FAC 249 held that even marginal and bottom line variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all. It was observed in para 8 as under:

"It was remarked in a recent Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court cited as State of Kerala Vs. Vasudevan Nair, 1975 FAC 8, as under:

"The act does not make a distinction between cases coming under it on CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 49 of 54 the basis of the decree of adulteration. It does not provide for aggravation of offence based on the extent of adulteration. The offence and punishment are the same whether the adulteration is great or small. Food pollution, even if it be only to the slightest extent, if continued in practice, would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence, even marginal or border line variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all and as public interests are involved in them, the maxim, De Minimis Non Curat Lex, law does not concern itself about trifles, does not apply to them."

98. Similar observations were made in another Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as MCD Vs. M/s Nestle Products India Ltd 1975 FAC 242 as under:

"While fixing the standards due allowance must have been given for probable errors in analysing articles of food. It, therefore, follows that when as a result of analysis by the Public Analyst for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi area the sample of condensed milk sweetened was found deficient to the extent of 1.30% in total milk solids, it was rightly reported to be adulterated and it would not be correct to hold the sample not to be adulterated by saying that possibly some mistake was made in analysis."

99. In State of Kerala Vs. P.K. Chamu 1975 (2) FAC 417, it was held as under:

"It was after due deliberations and taking into consideration various factors and after giving due allowance for probable errors that the standard for different articles of food was fixed under statute. When on analysis, it is found that an article of food does not conform to the standard prescribed, the sale of such an article is an offence under the Act which does not provide for exemption of marginal or borderline variations of the standard from the operation of the Act. To condone such variations on the ground that they are negligible will amount to altering the standard itself prescribed by the statute.".

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 50 of 54

100. In MCD Vs. Kishan Lal 1975 (2) FAC 31, it was held by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:

"The sample was taken in accordance with the rules and as the milk solids were deficient by 0.37 per cent the sample was rightly reported to be adulterated. The small excess found in milk fat cannot lead to the conclusion that the milk was not adulterated or there was some defect in taking the sample.".

101. In MCD Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. 1976 (1) FAC 23, the conviction was upheld though the variations from the prescribed standard was marginal / borderline. While holding so, the Hon'ble Division Bench relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court M.V. Joshi Vs. M.U. Shimpi & Anr AIR 1961SC 1494 and Malwa Co operative Milk Union Ltd. Vs. Bihari Lal & Anr. 1973 FAC 375.

102. In State of Haryana Vs. Dayanand 2004 (2) FAC 90, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of said case and especially considering the marginal difference in percentage of fat and nonsolid fat in the sample of cow milk, came to the conclusion that mere marginal difference may not be sufficient to raise an inference that the milk was not stirred properly before collecting the sample.".

103. The Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in The State of Punjab Vs. Teja Singh 1976 (2) FAC 42 held that " food pollution even it be only to the slightest extent would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence even marginal or borderline deviation/ variation from the prescribed standard under the Act are matter of serious concerns for all................ a negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard as laid down by the Act can not be ignored and an acquittal can not be recorded on any basis."

104. Similarly was held in Kishori Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 1981 (1) FAC 172 and Municipal Corporation Vs. Nestle's Products 1975 (1) FAC 42. CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 51 of 54

105. In Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 (1) FAC, 170 the conviction was upheld despite the variation from the prescribed standard being marginal. The Court relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Teja Singh, 1976 (2) FAC 44 wherein it was held "that negligible or marginal deviations from prescribed standard laid down by the Act cannot be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis.

106. In Roshan Lal Vs. State of UP 1982 (1) FAC 180 it has been held as under:

The wisdom of the legislature is not to be questioned and when certain standards have been prescribed for any food articles under the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, the sample should come to such standard.

Gerber method

107. It was lastly argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that in view of the law laid down by Hon. Apex Court in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 no conviction can be based relying on the Director's report as the Director used Gerber method which is not a sure/accurate test.

108. I have perused the report of Director, CFL dated 04.01.2010. As per the report of Director, the Director used the Gerber method for the purpose of analyzing CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 52 of 54 the sample of toned milk so collected by the Food Inspector. It is reflected in the report of Director that he used I.S. 1224 Part I 1977 for the purpose of calculating the percentage of milk fat in the sample of toned milk so analyzed and thereafter By difference calculated the contents of the milk solids not fat in the sample of toned milk. This is Gerber method as has been fairly conceded by Ld. SPP. The said method is not a sure/accurate test for the purpose of analysis of milk so as to give a finding/report regarding the milk fat and milk solids not fat in sample of milk as held by the Hon. Apex Court in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564. The Hon. Apex Court observed as under:

".......The High Court has indicated that although the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra V. Narayan Dewlu Shanbhag held that Gurber's method of analysis of the quality of food substance was not of assured quality and accuracy and such method was not certified by the Indian Standard Institute. The public analyst however followed Gurber's method and on the basis of such report the prosecution case was initiated. In that view of the matter the High Court did not intend to interfere with the order of acquittal. In our view, the High Court has taken a reasonable view and interference by this Court is not warranted. The appeal, therefore, fails and dismissed accordingly."

109. Reliance may also be placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Dewlu Shanbhaju (1979) 3 Cr LR 117 (Bombay), G.K. Upadhayay Vs. Kanubhai Raimalbhai Rabari and another 2009 (1) FAC 499 and Keshubhai Ranabhai Tukadiya Vs. State of Gujarat 2009 (1) FAC 565.

CC No. 2006/09 DA Vs. Ravi Rajput Page 53 of 54

110. In view of the above as the Director used the Gerber method no reliance can be placed upon the report for the purpose of concluding whether the sample of toned milk so collected was adulterated or not. Though Ld. SPP for the complainant argued that the Gerber method is a prescribed method in DGHS Manual and is a valid and accurate test and in fact it is the most widely used test all over the world for the purpose of analysis of milk to find out the percentage of the milk fat and the same is also certified by Indian Standards Institute time to time however in view of the above ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court and failure on the part of the Ld. SPP to distinguish the said ruling I find no merits in his contention.

111. Accordingly in view of my above discussion and the law laid down in Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikraro Kature & Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 the accused stands acquitted of the charges in the present case.

112. I order accordingly.

       Announced in the open Court                                  (Gaurav Rao)
           on 15th May, 2014                                       ACMMII/ New Delhi




       CC No. 2006/09
       DA  Vs.  Ravi Rajput                                                             Page 54 of 54

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Da vs . Ravi Rajput Page 1 Of 54 on 15 May, 2014