Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gopaldas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2018
Bench: R. Banumathi, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1038 Of 2013
GOPALDAS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESP0NDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Being aggrieved by the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and imposing sentence of imprisonment of six months on him, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. On 04.05.1995, on inspection by the Food Inspector, appellant was found selling ghee at the shop. Sample of ghee was collected for analysis which was found adulterated. Based on evidence of the Food Inspector and also the Food Analyst’s report, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court convicted the appellant. The High Court has affirmed the conviction and imposed sentence of imprisonment of six months.
3. Though on behalf of the appellant several points were raised, the main point raised by the appellant is Signature Not Verified that at the time of taking sample, whole bulk of ghee was Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.08.10 16:51:35 IST Reason: not stirred. It was submitted that unless there is stirring of ghee, there cannot be equal distribution of the ghee to make the sample homogeneous of the bulk ghee. 2 Considering the submissions, the courts below observed that there is no specific provision in the Food Adulteration Act or the Rules made thereunder that at the time of taking of the sample from a bulk, the same shall be properly stirred. Though there are no provisions in the Act or Rules to make sample as representative of the bulk of ghee, it is desirable to stir the bulk to make it homogeneous.
4. When PW-1 Food Inspector was questioned on this aspect about stirring of the bulk ghee, PW-1 stated that there was no necessity for stirring the ghee. Additionally, he has stated that he has heated the bulk of ghee and collected the sample. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the factum of heating the ghee was not mentioned in the panchnama. The evidence of PW-1 is not supported by contemporaneous documents/panchnama. Considering the matter in the light of evidence of PW-1, the courts below ought not to have accepted the evidence of PW-1 that the ghee was heated up.
5. Yet another ground that was not considered by the courts below was delay in conducting the test on the sample. The sample was taken on 04.05.1995 where as the test was conducted on 04.06.1996. As contended by the appellant, it was brought in evidence that the bottles were not wrapped with thick paper to rule out any possibility of the sample being affected by moisture. Though delay in conducting the test may not by itself be 3 a ground to discard the food analysis report, considering the evidence brought on record in the present case that the sample of ghee was not wrapped with thick paper, in our considered view, the possibility of the ghee losing its quality and purity because of the delay conducting the test cannot be ruled out. The benefit of doubt on this aspect is to be given to the accused-appellant.
6. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] …......................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI 8TH AUGUST, 2018 4 ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1038/2013 GOPALDAS Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) Date : 08-08-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Vansja Shukla,Adv.
Mr. B.N. Dubey,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MADHU BALA) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)