Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Amar Chand on 19 May, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
Bench: Siddharth Mridul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.05.2015
CRL.L.P.183/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
AMAR CHAND ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.106/2000 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
CRL.L.P.183/2015 Page 1 of 4
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Mr. R.P.Singh purchased a sample of Dal Masoor from the respondent on 14.03.2000 at about 07.30 p.m. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts; each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The respondent‟s signature was also obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. One counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst in intact condition and two counter parts were deposited with the LHA. Upon analysis it was found that the sample was adulterated as it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. Sunset Yellow FCF. The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(a)(b)(j) & (m) of PFA Act punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and Rules to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. The sole contention that was raised before the Trial Court was whether the sample taken was representative or not. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that there was vast variation between the report of PA and the Director, CFL which establishes that the sample was not representative.
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the sample was representative. It was observed by the Trial Court in this behalf as follows:-
CRL.L.P.183/2015 Page 2 of 4
"11. Here it be seen that in the PA‟s Report, the sample in question was declared as adulterated on account of the presence of one synthetic coloring matter namely „Sunset Yellow FCF‟. However, the Director CFL found the sample in question adulterated due to the presence of two colours namely Sunset Yellow FCF & Tartrazine. The PA report is silent about the presence of Mineral Oil but the Director CFL found the same to be present in his report. Further in PA‟s Report Foreign matter organic was found to the tune of 0.003% whereas, as pr the opinion of Director CFL it was absent in the sample counterpart so sent for analysis to him. Similarly, in first report i.e. PA‟s Report, Aflatoxin B1was not detected whereas, interestingly the Director CFL found it to the tune of 15.0 which is totally contradictory to the findings of PA. Moreover there is variation in respect of presence of Moisture between the Report of PA & CFL as in the PA‟s Report the Moisture was adjudged to the tune of 11.17% and in the CFL Report it was adjudged to the tune of 13.1% (although they are well within the parameter of Appendix A. 18.06.09). Thus, both the reports are so contradictory, that cannot be made basis for holding the accused guilty."
5. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs. State, 2005 (2) FAC 219, Delhi High Court, the arguments made on behalf of the State by the learned APP that the trial court should have only considered the CFL report and not the PA report holds no water as the perusal of the trial court judgment shows substantial variance in the PA report and CFL report. CRL.L.P.183/2015 Page 3 of 4
6. Consequently, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has failed to prove that the sample was homogenized and representative and resultantly acquitted the respondent.
7. I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court passed based on the discussion extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the present petition seeking leave to appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 19, 2015 mk CRL.L.P.183/2015 Page 4 of 4