Delhi District Court
Da vs . Dinesh Mittal Page 1 Of 18 on 6 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 56/08
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
Sh. Dinesh Mittal S/o Sh. Meghshyam
M/s Mittal Pansari Store, Shop No. 11/38,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi 91
R/o H. No. 19/121, Kalyanpuri, Delhi 91
........ VendorcumProprietor
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 56/08
Date of the commission of the offence : 22.09.2007
Date of filing of the complaint : 25.04.2008
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food
Inspector
CC No.56/08
DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 1 of 18
Offence complained of or proved Violation of provisions of Section 2
(ia) (a) (b) (j) & (m) of PFA Act
1954 and violation of provisions of
Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 & 29 of PFA
Rules; punishable U/s 16(1A) r/w
section 7 of the PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 06.11.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 25.04.2008 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. V.P.S. Chaudhary against the accused Dinesh Mittal. It is stated in the complaint that on 22.09.2007 at about 5.00 PM, FI Sh. Som Pal Singh purchased a sample of Dal Arhar a food article for analysis from Dinesh Mittal S/o Sh. Meghshyam from the premises of M/s Mittal Pansari Store, Shop No. 11/38, Kalyanpuri, Delhi 110091, where the said food article was found stored for sale and where accused Dinesh Mittal was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Sh. Som Pal Singh purchased approximately 1500 gms of Dal Arhar taken from an open plastic bag bearing no label declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the Dal Arhar with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating it in all possible directions under the supervision and direction of Sh. Radha Charan, SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by Food Inspector by putting it in three clean CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 2 of 18 and dry glass bottles and each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of vendor were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the bottles containing the sample. Notice was given to accused and price of sample was also paid to him vide vendor's receipt dated 22.09.2007. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Dinesh Mittal and the other witness namely Sh. Jagdish Prasad, FA. It is stated that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. Jagdish Prasad, FA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact condition were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and opined that "The sample is adulterated because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. Tartrazine".
3. It is stated that during investigation it was found that Sh. Dinesh Mittal S/o Sh. Meghshyam was the VendorcumProprietor of M/s Mittal Pansari Store, Shop No. 11/38, Kalyanpuri, Delhi91 at the time of sampling and as such he is incharge and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said shop. After conclusion of the investigation, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (j) and (m) of the PFA Act, violation CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 3 of 18 of Rule 23 r/w Rules 28 and 29 of the PFA Rules which is punishable U/s 16 (1A) of the PFA Act and for violation of provision of Section 14A of the Act which is punishable U/s 16 (1C) of PFA Act.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 25.04.2008. The accused appeared and moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory (CFL). The said application was allowed and consequently second counterpart of the sample was sent to CFL, Pune for analysis. Director, CFL on analysing the second counterpart of the sample in question opined vide his Certificate dated 12.06.2008 that "sample contains synthetic food colour i.e. Tartrazine & hence contravenes Rule 29 of PFA Rules 1955 ".
5. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Sh. Som Pal Singh who conducted the sample proceedings as PW1 towards precharge evidence and vide order dated 06.07.2009, pre charge evidence was closed.
6. Charge for violation of sub clause (a) (b) (j) and (m) of Section 2 (ia) of the PFA Act and for violation of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 and 29 of PFA Rules 1955; punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 27.10.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, in post charge evidence the prosecution examined three witnesses including Food Inspector Sh. Som Pal Singh as PW1, Sh. Radha Charan, the then SDM/LHA as PW2, FI V.P.S. Chaudhary, who filed the present complaint as Ex. PW3 and FA Mittar Pal CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 4 of 18 who was made a witness in the sample proceedings as PW4 and PE was closed vide order dated 24.07.2012.
8. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.02.2013 wherein accused claimed himself to be innocent and opted to lead evidence in his defence. However, accused did not lead any evidence in his defence and DE was closed vide order dated 01.05.2013.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that the Food Inspector has not applied correct procedure for lifting the sample as Jhaba by which the sample was lifted was not made clean and dry by him and due to bad sampling, the sample commodity got contaminated with other food articles or colouring material which resulted in detection of synthetic colour in the sample for which accused cannot be held guilty. He further argued that clean and dry jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings which is also evident from the contradictions in the statement of PWs regarding cleaning of Jhaba. He further argued that Food Inspector did not homogenize the sample before lifting it and a representative sample was not lifted by the Food Inspector which is evident from the variations in the report of Public Analyst and Director, CFL, benefit of which is liable to be given to the accused. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon various judgments reported in State Vs. Suresh Kumar 2010 (2) FAC 204, State Vs. Ram Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398, Raja Ram Seth Vs. DA 2012 (II) FAC 523, Khusi Ram Vs. State 1984 (II) FAC 256, CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 5 of 18 Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. Rajendra Kumar 1988 (II) FAC 3, State Vs. Rajender Tulsi Dass 2011 (2) FAC 299, Jagdish Kumar Vs. State 1980 (II) FAC 323. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that test applied by both the Analysts for detecting the synthetic colour in the sample commodity is paper chromatography test, which is not a sure and valid test and for this reason also accused is liable to be acquitted. To fortify this argument, he has placed reliance upon Maya Ram Vs. State of Punjab 1987 (II) FAC 320 and State Vs. Subhash Chand 2012 (2) JCC 1052.
11. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant argued that in the present case clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceeding and only on the basis of minor discrepancy and contradiction in the statement of PWs, it cannot be said that clean and dry Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings and accused cannot be acquitted. He further argued that so far the variations in the report of both the Analysis are concerned, as per report of Director, CFL, the sample was found not conforming to the standards of Dal Arhar as per PFA Rules and the report of Director, CFL being conclusive, supersedes the report of Public Analyst and, therefore, the accused cannot be given benefit of variations in the reports of PA and CFL. He further argued that paper chromatography test to detect the colour in the sample is a valid test. The Ld. Prosecutor has vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused and hence he is liable to be convicted.
12. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as per the averments made in the complaint.
CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 6 of 1813. PW1 FI Sh. Som Pal Singh who is the complainant and conducted the sample proceedings in the present case deposed in his examinationinchief that on 22.09.2007 at about 3.00 PM, he along with FA Jagdish Prasad and other officials of the PFA department under the supervision and directions of SDM/LHA Sh. Radha Charan., visited the premises of M/s Mittal Pansari Store, Shop No. 11/13, Kalyanpuri, Delhi, where accused was found conducting the business of food articles stored there for sale for human consumption including Dal Arhar. He further deposed that they disclosed their identity and intention to purchase a sample of Dal Arhar (ready for sale) for analysis to which accused agreed and thereafter at about 5.00 PM he purchased 1500 gms of Dal Arhar taken from an open plastic bag having no label declaration on payment of Rs. 54/vide vendor receipt Ex. PW1/A after properly mixing the same with the help of a clean and dry jhaba lying in the bag by rotating it in all possible directions. He further deposed that thereafter he divided the sample into three equal parts by putting them into three clean and dry glass bottles and each sample bottle was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that he prepared Notice in From VI Ex. PW1/B and Panchnama Ex. PW1/C and a copy of notice was also given to the accused and all the aforesaid documents were read over and explained to the accused who after understanding the same signed the same. He also deposed that vendor also gave his statement vide Ex. PW1/D to the effect that he is the sole proprietor of the shop and his shop is not registered with MCD or Sales Tax. PW1 further deposed that on CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 7 of 18 24.09.2007, one counterpart of the sample in intact condition was deposited with the PA vide receipt Ex. PW1/E and remaining two counterparts were deposited with the LHA on the same day vide receipt Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that report of PA was received according to which the sample was found adulterated. He further deposed that after completion of investigation by him, the complete case file was sent to the Director (PFA) who accorded requisite consent for launching prosecution against the accused and accordingly he filed the present complaint and thereafter intimation letter along with PA's report was sent to the accused through registered post.
14. PW1 during his deposition has also placed on report of Public Analyst as Ex. PW1/G,, letter sent by him during investigation to STO, Ward No. 84 as Ex. PW1/H, consent given by the Director, PFA for initiating the prosecution against the accused as Ex. PW1/I, complaint filed by FI V.P.S. Chaudhary as Ex. PW1/J, copy of intimation letter sent to the accused along with PA report as Ex. PW1/K.
15. PW2 Sh. Radha Charan, the then SDM/LHA under whose direction sample proceedings were conducted has corroborated the testimony of PW1 in his examinationinchief.
16. PW3 FI V.P.S. Chaudhary who filed the present complaint deposed in his examinationinchief that after consent Ex. PW1/I granted by the Director, PFA, he filed the complaint Ex. PW1/J against the accused and thereafter intimation letter Ex. PW1/K along with PA report was sent to the accused by registered post by the SDM/LHA which was not received back CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 8 of 18 undelivered. He has also placed on record the photocopy of the postal registration receipt showing dispatch of intimation letter as Ex. PW2/A.
17. PW4 Sh. Mittar Pal, FA who had accompanied the raiding party and was made a witness in the sample proceedings has deposed more or less on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 and PW2 in their examination inchief.
18. PW1 in his crossexamination after charge stated that the Dal Arhar was mixed with the help of the Jhaba by the vendor which was provided by the vendor. He further stated that the same Jhaba was used by the vendor for putting the sample commodity in a polythene bag for weighing purpose. He further stated that the polythene bag wherein the sample commodity was weighed was not made clean and dry at the spot as it was already clean and dry. He denied the suggestion that some yellow colour was already sticking with the sample bottles and polythene bag, when they were used in the sample proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that the variation between the PA and CFL Reports, if any, is indicative of the fact that a representative sample was not lifted by him. Similar suggestion was put to PW2 in his cross examination that sample failed due to bad sampling, which he denied. PW4 also in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that sample bottles were not clean and dry or that some yellow colour was already lying therein when they were used in sample proceedings.
19. The accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has not disputed the fact that on 22.09.2007 at about 5.00 PM, he was found CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 9 of 18 conducting the business of food articles including Dal Arhar at his shop at M/s Mittal Pansari Store, Shop No. 11/38, Kalyanpuri, Delhi, when PFA Team including FI Som Pal Singh and FA Sh. Jagdish Prasad under the supervision and direction of SDM/LHA Sh. Radha Charan visited his shop and a sample of Dal Arhar was lifted by the FI Som Pal Singh which on analysis was found to be adulterated. However, it was contended by the accused that the Dal was not properly mixed with the Jhaba and the Jhaba was not made clean and dry at the spot before using the same in sample proceedings and hence no reliance can be placed upon the report of PA and Director, CFL.
20. The present case has been launched against the accused on the basis of report of Public Analyst which has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/G. The Public Analyst vide its report Ex. PW1/G found the sample lifted from the accused adulterated on account of containing synthetic colouring matter viz. Tartrazine which is not permissible in pulses as per PFA Act and Rules. The accused on appearing exercised his right u/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act and got analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Director, Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Pune, who also vide his report/certificate dated 12.06.2008 found the sample contravening the Rule 29 of PFA Rules 1955 as synthetic colour 'Tartrazine' was detected.
21. From the crossexamination of PWs and the statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the main defence of the accused appears to be that synthetic colour was detected in the sample due to bad sampling on the part of the Food Inspector as he had not made the Jhaba clean and dry before CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 10 of 18 using the same in the sample proceedings.
22. In the present case, admittedly, the sample of Dal Arhar was mixed with the help of the Jhaba. Now, it has to be seen as to whether clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceedings or not. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the crossexamination of PWs.
23. PW1 FI Som Pal Singh who conducted the sample proceedings stated in his crossexamination before charge that the Dal was mixed by him by the Jhaba. However, when the said witness appeared again in the witness box after framing of charge, he contradicted his own statement stating that the Dal Arhar was mixed with the the help of Jhaba by the vendor. Whereas, PW4 FA Mittar Pal who was made a witness in the sample proceedings stated in his crossexamination that FI mixed the entire quantity of Dal, which was lying in the plastic bag, with the help of Jhaba in question, which is again in contradiction to the statement of PW1 where he stated that Dal was mixed by the vendor with the help of Jhaba.
24. Not only this, there are other discrepancies in the statement of PWs. PW1 in his crossexamination stated that he saw only one Jhaba lying in the shop, whereas PW4 stated in his crossexamination that there were 3 Jhabas available with the accused at that time. Similarly, PW1 stated in his crossexamination that the Jhaba was not made clean and dry at the spot as it was already clean and dry, while PW4 stated that the Jhaba was made clean by the accused with the help of a cotton cloth (Duster).
CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 11 of 1825. From the aforesaid crossexamination of PWs, it is evident that there are contradictions in the statement of PWs regarding number of Jhaba lying at the the shop of the accused at the time of sampling and cleaning of Jhaba. As per PW1, there was only one Jhaba at the shop of the accused at the time of sample proceedings and since Jhaba was already clean and dry, same was not again made dry and clean. While, as per PW4, there were 3 Jhabas lying at the shop of the accused at that time and Jhaba by which sample was lifted was made clean by the vendor himself with the help of a cotton cloth. Even there is discrepancy as to who mixed the Dal before lifting the sample. As such, PWs themselves are not sure that how many Jhaba were lying at the spot and whether the same was made clean and dry at the spot or not and it raises a doubt that in fact clean and dry Jhaba was used at the time of sample proceedings or not. In the given circumstances, where accused has raised a plea that clean and dry Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings and the PWs are making contradictory statement to each other regarding cleaning of Jhaba, the complainant was required to lead positive evidence to the effect that clean and dry Jhaba was used while taking the sample to rule out any kind of possibility of contamination of Jhaba with some colouring material.
26. In a criminal revision titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryna & Anr. (supra), a sample of chilly powder was taken, which on analysis was found adulterated. In the said case, as per the witness examined by the prosecution, the sample of chilly powder was taken from an open tin with the help of a ladle, which was not cleaned before using the same. The CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 12 of 18 sample of chilly powder was put into a paper envelope, and thereafter, it was weighed and thereafter ultimately the sample was put into bottles, which were also not cleaned in the presence of the witness. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, "The prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the paper envelope in which, in the first instance, the sample of chilly powder was put from the tin, in which the same was earlier lying, was not smeared with any colour or colouring material and was completely clean. It was also requirement of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the ladle, with which the chilly powder was taken from the tin, and put on the paper envelope, in the first instance, was cleaned, and was not smeared with any colour or colouring material. It was also requirement of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the bottles, in which ultimately, the sample after dividing into portions, was put from the envelope, were dry and clean and were not smeared with any colour or colouring material. Since, there is not even a whisper in the statement of witness, on the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it could be said that the sample was not taken, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules." It was further held that the possibility of the paper envelope, ladle and the bottles having presence of some colour or colouing material cannot be ruled out.
27. In the present case also, no positive evidence has been led by the prosecution to the effect that clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceedings. Rather, the case of the prosecution that clean Jhaba was used in CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 13 of 18 the sample proceedings, became doubtful on account of contradictions in the statement of PWs regarding cleaning of the Jhaba by which the sample was taken.
28. It has also come on record from the evidence of PWs that accused was found conducting the business of other food articles apart from the Dal in question. In this regard, PW2 Sh. Radha Charan also stated in his crossexamination that other pulses and spices were also being sold. He could not deny whether Haldi Powder, Mirch Powder were also being sold. Now, if the version of PW1 that there was only one Jhaba at the shop of the accused is assumed to be correct, though he stated that Jhaba was clean and dry, but since there was only one Jhaba and accused was also selling other food articles, the possibility of contamination of Jhaba with the other food articles cannot be completely ruled out and it leads credence to the contention of accused that clean Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings and synthetic colour was found by the Public Analyst due to contamination in jhaba for which accused cannot be held guilty as also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused.
29. There is another aspect of the matter. Though, as per report of Public Analyst and Director, CFL, the sample of Dal Arhar failed on account of detection of synthetic colour viz. 'Tartrazine', but a perusal of reports of both the Analysts shows that there are variations in both the reports in respect of different parameters of sample commodity, which are beyond the permissible limit of .3%. As per report of Public Analyst (PA) Ex. PW1/G , the moisture determined by heating the pulverized grains at 130133 deg. C was found to CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 14 of 18 the tune of 9.56%, while Director, Central Food Laboratory found the same to the tune of 9.14%. Similarly, Public Analyst vide its report found the 'Other Food Grains' to the extent of 0.01%, 'Grain damaged by fungus, moisture or heating internally in the sample upto 1.07% and 'Weeviled grains' to the extent of 0.15%,, but the Director CFL found the 'Other edible grains', 'Damaged grains' and 'Weeviled grains' to be Nil.
30. The aforesaid variation in respect of moisture detected by both the Analysts are higher than .3% i.e. the permissible range of variation, which shows that the sample was not properly mixed up and hence it cannot be said to be representative sample. In State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398 after relying upon various judgments titled as Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219 and State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) FAC 177, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that, "Since in the present case, variation in public analyst and CFL certificates is more than .3%, it would clearly imply that samples in the present case were not representative.". In Kanshi Nath Vs. State (Supra) even while certain other contentions of the accused were rejected, the contention concerning the samples sent to the two test labs not being representative was accepted and the accused were acquitted. In this judgment after referring to the judgment of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that, "Therefore, on the facts of the CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 15 of 18 present case, it can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be sustained". Similarly in State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. (Supra) has been observed that, " While both reports have concurred in the conclusion that the sample was adulterated, the variation in the material parameters in the sample sent to each of them is not insignificant. In the sample sent to the Public Analyst the ash content is 4.04% whereas in the sample sent to the CFTRI it is 6%. The ash insoluble in dilute HCL is 2.55% in the sample sent to the Public Analyst whereas it is 1.95% in the sample sent to the CFTRI. The lead content is Nil in the first and 5.4 ppm in the second. These variations are more than y.3% which is stated to be the permissible limit. It cannot therefore be said that identical representatives samples were sent to both the Public Analyst as well as the CFTRI".
31. Similarly, It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Raja Ram Seth & Sons & Anr. Vs. Delhi Administration 2012 (2) FAC 523 that, "If the variations in the report of PA and CFL is more than 0.3 % which is stated to be permissible limit, it cannot be said that identical representative samples were sent to both the Public Analyst and CFL and therefore it raises a doubt about the sample of being not homogenized and no conviction is permissible on the basis of said reports and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused." Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) FAC 371.
CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 16 of 18Reliance may also be placed upon State Vs. Suresh Kumar & Anr. 2010 (2) FAC
204.
32. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since there are variation in the report of Public Analyst (PA) and Director, Central Food Laboratory, which are beyond the permissible limit of .3 %, it would clearly imply that samples sent to both the Analysts were not representative one.
33. Further, a perusal of report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G as well as certificate of Director, CFL shows that Paper Chromatography method has been applied by both the Experts for detecting the artificial colouring matter in the sample commodity of Dal Arhar. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Maya Ram Vs. The State of Punjab FAC 1987 (II) 320 has held that paper chromatography test is not a sure test to detect the colour in the sample commodity. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Subhash Chand 2012 (2) JCC 1052, after relying upon the various judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh 1991 (1) FAC 38, Kartar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) FAC 243, Maya Ram Vs. The State of Punjab (cited supra) and Balmukand Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2008 Cril. LJ 1084, held that the paper chromatography test was not sufficient to conclude as to whether permitted or unpermitted colouring material has been used. The expert has to examine carefully the colouring matter by applying various tests by excluding the use of permitted colours, before reaching to the conclusion to detect the unpermitted CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 17 of 18 colour. Thus, it was all the more necessary for the concerned laboratory to have had conducted such necessary tests to rule out the use of permitted colouring material.
34. In the present case, no other method apart from the Paper Chromatography test has been applied by both the Analysts to detect the adulteration or presence of colouring matter in the sample commodity. Therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities cited supra, report of both the Analysts cannot be said to be a valid and sure report.
35. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go in favour of accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 6th November, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No.56/08
DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 18 of 18
CC No. 56/08
DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal
06.11.2013
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused with counsel Sh. R.D. Goel.
Further arguments heard. Put at 4.00 PM for orders.
(Balwant Rai Bansal)
ACMMII/PHC/ND/06.11.2013
At 4.00 PM
Present: As above
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has furnished the B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ each. Same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/06.11.2013 CC No.56/08 DA Vs. Dinesh Mittal Page 19 of 18