Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Karan Singh on 13 August, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 131-SBA of 2002
Date of decision: 13th August, 2009
State of Haryana
... Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed by State of Haryana against the acquittal of Karan Singh son of Kishan Lal Malik. Karan Singh was acquitted by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi vide his judgment and order dated 11th December, 2000. The Court came to conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the respondent has committed offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)
(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').
In the present case, complaint was instituted by Chand Ram, Govt. Food Inspector. It was stated in the complaint that on 29th January, 1992 at 7.30 a.m. Chand Ram, Govt. Food Inspector, along with Dr. S.K. Gupta, was present near Anaaj Mandi, Hansi, when the accused Karan Singh was apprehended carrying 15 kg of cow milk in a drum for public sale. The Food Inspector, after following the prescribed norms, purchased Criminal Appeal No. 131-SBA of 2002 2 750 ml of cow milk from the accused and as per the specifications, sample was drawn. As per the report of the public analyst, the milk was deficient in milk solid not fat, to the extent of 14 per cent. The accused was charged for offence under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, Chand Ram, Govt. Food Inspector appeared as PW-1, Dr.S.K. Gupta as PW-2 and Telu Ram Clerk of Local Health Authority, Hansi as PW-3. The documents were also tendered. The accused denied incriminating circumstances put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the defence evidence, he himself appeared to controvert the prosecution case. The trial Court came to the conclusion that in the present case, milk was not properly stirred before taking the sample, as the milk was not made homogeneous. The trial Court relied upon "State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh" 1992 Crl. L.T. 234 and reproduced the following portion of the Division Bench judgment:
"That the Inspector in his statement in Court stated that he stirred the milk in one drum containing 20 kgs of cow's milk and made it homogeneous. He has not cared to depose as to how and in what manner he had stirred the milk so that he could corroborate the fact that it was made homogeneous before sample was taken. If 20 kgs of milk is in a drum, atleast on this point, the witness was required to state that he used a clean stick or the milk measurement and stirred the milk clock- wise and anti-clockwise in such a way that the milk at the bottom was thoroughly mixed with that of the contents of the milk on its upper layer in the drum. If it was stated so, then alone at this point it could be said that the milk was homogeneous and the sample was taken of the representative material."
The trial Court further relied upon "Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana" 1997 (2) RCR 462, wherein it was held that it was incumbent upon the Govt. Food Inspector to stir the milk clock-wise and anti clock- Criminal Appeal No. 131-SBA of 2002 3 wise, with a clean stick, so that representative homogeneous sample is drawn. The trial Court further took notice of observations made in "Prem v. State of Haryana" 1996 (1) RCR 152; "State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh" 1992 (2) RCR 57 and "Reet Singh v. State of Haryana" 1990 (2) RCR 294.
The ratio of the above said judgments is that not only the sample should be representative of the milk made homogeneous by following the due procedure for stirring but the Food Inspector should also state so in the complaint and in the Court while appearing as a witness. Taking this ratio of law into consideration, the trial Court held as under:
"15. In the present case, GFI as well as doctor who was present at the time of taking the sample did not depose whether the milk measurement had reached the bottom of drum and the milk lying at the bottom was thoroughly mixed with the upper layer of the milk in the drum. No contrary law whatsoever has been produced by the G.F.I."
Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has failed to show any material from the record, from which it can be inferred that the milk was duly stirred, when sample was taken by the Food Inspector. Counsel for the State also has not brought to my notice any other judgment, in which the contrary view has been taken.
Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 13, 2009 rps