Delhi District Court
Food Inspector vs . 1. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta on 2 February, 2011
::1::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-II,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEWDELHI
C.C. N0. 185/02
Food Inspector Vs. 1. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta
Department of PFA S/o Latre Shri Har Bhagwan
Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Lazeez Chic-Inn
A-20, Lawrence Road 24 KD Market, Pitampura
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 (Near Dominoz Pizza), Delhi
R/o: 424, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar
New Delhi.
JUDGMENT
Serial number of the case : 185/02
Date of the commission of the offence : 24.12.2001
Date of filing of the complaint : 20.11.2002
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri A.K. Singh, Food Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : S. 2 (ia) (m) of the Act of 1954
and Rule 32 (f) of PFA Rules,
punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w S. 7
of the Act of 1954
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 01.02.2011
Judgment announced on : 02.02.2011
Brief statement of the reasons for such decision:
1. The present complaint was filed by the Delhi Administration through FI Shri A.K. Singh as on 28.11.2005. It is averred herein that on 10.03.2005 at about 6:30 PM, FI Shri A.K. Singh purchased a CC No. 185/02 FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta ::2::
sample of "Refined Soyabean Oil", a food article for analysis from Shri Vinod Kumar Mendiratta, S/o Late Shri Har Bhagwan of M/s Lazeez Chic-Inn, 24 KD Market, Pitampura, (Near Dominoz Pizza), Delhi. The said food article was stored there for sale and said Shri Vinod Kumar Mendiratta was found conducting the business of the said food article at that time. The sample consisted of approximately 375 gms of "Refined Soyabean Oil" (ready for sale) taken from an open container, bearing no label or declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Shri J.N. Kataria, SDM/LHA (North West). The sample was taken after proper homogenization with the help of clean and dry karchi by rotating it in all possible directions. FI divided the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and dry glass bottles. Each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. The vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slips and on the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice in Form VI was given and price was paid against Vendor's Receipt of the same date. Panchnama was prepared at the spot. All the documents prepared by the FI were signed by said Shri Vinod Kumar Mendiratta and also by Shri Bal Mukund, FI as witness. Efforts were made to join public witnesses but none came forward.
2. It was revealed that Shri Vinod Kumar Mendiratta was the vendor- cum-proprietor of the said firm at the time of sampling and he was In-
CC No. 185/02FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta ::3::
Charge and the person responsible for day to day conduct of the said firm.
3. It is further revealed in the complaint that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA Number JNK/LHA/000914 was sent to the PA and the remaining two counterparts were deposited with the LHA; all in intact condition. PA had given the opinion that "the sample does not conform to the standards because saponification value exceeds the prescribed maximum limit of 195". Thereafter, the requisite sanction U/s 20 of the Act was obtained and the present complaint was filed.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 20.11.2002. on appearance accused exercised his right and option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and got sample analysed by the Director CFL, Pune. The Director CFL, Pune vide his Report dated 24.02.2003 opined that the sample did not conform to the standards of "Refined Soyabean Oil" as per PFA Rules, 1955".
5. Charge for the violation of provisions U/s 2 (ia) (m) of the PFA Act, punishable U/s 16 (1) (a), r/w S. 7 of PFA Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. 2 witnesses i.e. (PW-1) Shri A.K. Singh, FI and (PW-2) Shri B.P. CC No. 185/02 FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta ::4::
Saroha, FI were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PE stood closed vide order dated 09.04.2010.
7. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded as on 01.07.2010 wherein, the accused opted for not to lead evidence in his defence.
8. File perused. Counsels heard.
9. The prosecution in respect of the present case was launched on the basis of PA's Report dated 07.01.2002. Vide the said Report, the sample lifted as on 24.12.2001 was found not conforming to the standards because the 'saponification value' was exceeding the maximum limit of 195. The saponification value thereof was adjudged to the tune of 196.39 i.e. in excess of permissible limit of 195.
10. Further, the accused on being summoned exercised the right and option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and consequent thereto, the sample counterpart was got analysed from CFL, Pune. As per the Certificate of the Director CFL i.e. Certificate dated 24.02.2003, the sample was found not conforming to the standards of "Refined Soyabean Oil" because the test for 'rancidity' was positive. However, the Director CFL confirmed that the commodity in question was otherwise found conforming to the rest of the standards as laid CC No. 185/02 FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta ::5::
down in the Act of 1954. The said counterpart had been directed to be sent to the Director CFL vide order dated 23.01.2003.
11. The facts of the case and the rest of the material on record are of such a nature that the present case is bound to result into acquittal. The sample in question had been lifted as on 24.12.2001 and the PA Report is dated 07.01.2002. The said Report clearly reflects that the sample was found free from rancidity and suspended matter, meaning thereby that uptill 07.01.2002, there was nothing sort of foul smell or odour in the given commodity. However, as a matter of fact, the proceedings against the accused could only be launched not prior than 20.11.2002 i.e. almost after one year of the sample proceedings, that too despite the fact that the PA's Report had been received well in time. It is also worth mentioning that there was only one accused and the scope of investigation in the present matter was also very much limited. Because of this very reason, the right U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 could only be exercised more than a year after the date of sample proceedings. In these facts and circumstances, it appears quite possible that the given commodity due to the passage of such a long time, got developed the alleged rancidity, which otherwise was absent at the time of sampling and uptil the date of analysis by the PA.
12. The prosecution witnesses have also failed to utter even a single line of deposition as to how and why they could not initiate the CC No. 185/02 FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta ::6::
proceedings within the reasonable time. It is also worth mentioning that though the Certificate by Director CFL is the conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, yet in the given facts and circumstances, the said Report can very well be confronted with the opinion of the earlier Expert i.e. Report by the PA due to the fact that observation in both the Reports are in clear contradiction to each other. The Report of the PA shows that the sample failed due to the fact that the saponification value was found exceeding the maximum permissible limit whereas, as per the Report of the Director CFL, saponification value of the commodity was found well within the limits. Further, one Report reflects the sample commodity as free from rancidity whereas, other one finds the same positive for rancidity. Thus, it is very much clear that the prosecution story is based upon two divergent opinions which can not be made the basis to sustain conviction. For these reasons, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court Raghubir Singh
on 02nd February, 2011 ACMM-II/ New Delhi
CC No. 185/02
FI Vs. Vinod Kumar Mendiratta