Delhi District Court
Fi vs . Tulsi Das Etc. Page 1 Of 18 on 8 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 241/06
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
................. Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Tulsi Das S/o Late Sh. Datu Ram
M/s Soni Super Store,
1586, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31
R/o 853, Prem Gali No. 3C,
Multani Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi31
..................VendorcumProprietor
2. Sh. Bal Mukund Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Rattan Sharma
M/s Shri Giriraj Supari Traders
Delhi Mathura Bypass, Mathura, UP
R/o Village Chhatikara, PO Chhatikara
ThanaVrindavan, Distt Mathura, UP
..................Nominee/Licencee of
SuppliercumMfg. Firm
CC No. 241/06
FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 1 of 18
3. M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders,
Delhi Mathura Bypass,
Mathura, U.P.
..................Supplier/Mfg. Firm
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 241/06
Date of the commission of the offence : 02/05/06
Date of filing of the complaint : 12/10/06
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri Ranjeet Singh, Food
Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : For violation of provision of
Section 2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954,
provision of Rule 42 ZZZ(1),
Rule 42 ZZZ(6) and Rule 32i, of
PFA Rules 1955; punishable U/s
16(1) (a) r/w S. 7 of PFA Act
1954.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused no. 1 Convicted
Accused no. 2 & 3 Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 22.04.2013
Judgment announced on : 08/05/13
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 12.10.2006 by the CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 2 of 18 Delhi Administration through FI Sh. Ranjeet Singh against the aforesaid accused persons. It is stated in the complaint that on 02.05.2006 at about 6.00 PM, FI Sh. Ranjeet Sharma purchased a sample of Sweet Supari, a food article for analysis from accused Sh. Tulsi Das, S/o late Sh. Datu Ram from the premises of M/s Soni Super Store, 1856, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 31, where the said food article was stored for sale and where accused Tulsi Das was found conducting the business of the said food article. The sample consisted of 6 sealed polythene packets of 250 gms each of Sweet Supari, having identical label declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Shri V.P. Singh, SDM/LHA and was divided into three equal parts and each counterpart containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of accused Tulsi Das (vendor) were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample counterparts. Notice in Form VI was given to him and price of sample was also paid vide Vendor's Receipt dated 02.05.2006. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by FI Sh. Ranjeet Singh were signed by accused Tulsi Das, the vendor and the other witness namely Sh. Mittra Pal, FA. It is stated that before taking the sample, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 3 of 18 Sh. Mittra Pal, FA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA code No. 21/LHA/15023 in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analyzed the sample and opined that "the sample is misbranded because Language of statutory warning and best before declaration are not as per Rule42 ZZZ(6) and Rule 32i of PFA Act and Rules and there is complete violation of Rule 42 (ZZZ) (I) of PFA Act & Rules."
3. It is further stated that Sh. Tulsi Das S/o late Sh. Datu Ram was the VendorcumProprietor of M/s Soni Super Store at the time of sampling and as such he was incharge of and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said shop. The said food article i.e. Sweet Supari was supplied to M/s Soni Super Store by the manufacturing firm M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders, Delhi Mathura Bypass, Mathura, UP. The said firm has nominated the licencee Sh. Bal Mukund Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Rattan Sharma as nominee under PFA Act, 1954 and as such he is the person who is incharge and responsible for day to day conduct of business of the suppliercummanufacturing firm M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders and being a firm M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders is also responsible to be CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 4 of 18 prosecuted. Thereafter, 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(ix) (k) of the PFA Act, Rule 32i, Rule 42 (ZZZ) (6) and Rule 42 (ZZZ) (1) of PFA Rules 1955, which is punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act 1954.
4. The accused persons were summoned vide order dated 12.10.2006. The accused appeared and Notices for violation of provisions of Section 2(ix) (k) of the PFA Act, violation of provision of Rule 32i, Rule 42 ZZZ (6) and Rule 42 ZZZ (1) of PFA Rules 1955, punishable U/s 16 (1)
(a) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act 1954 were framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 06.04.2009 to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely Shri Ranjeet Singh, FI as PW1, Shri Mittar Pal, FA as PW2 and Shri V.P. Singh, SDM/LHA as PW3 and PE was closed vide order dated 07.02.2011.
6. Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w S. 281 Cr.P.C were recorded on 18.08.2011 wherein all of them claimed themselves to be innocent, and accused no. 1 opted to lead evidence in his CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 5 of 18 defence. However, accused no 1 did not lead any evidence in his defence and DE was closed vide order dated 18.10.2011.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. In order to prove its case prosecution examined FI Sh. Ranjeet Singh as PW1 who has substantiated the complaint in his evidence. He has deposed that on 02.05.2006, he along with FA Mittar Pal and other staff under the supervision and direction of Sh. V.P. Singh, SDM/LHA visited the premises of accused no. 1 M/s Soni Super Store, where accused no. 1 Tulsi Das was found conducting the business of food articles including Sweet Suprai. He further deposed that he disclosed his identity and purchased the sample commodity and tried to join public witnesses, but none agreed. He further deposed that after purchasing the sample commodity, he divided the same in three equal parts by putting 2 originally sealed packets in one counterpart and each counterpart containing the sample of Sweet Supari was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that vendor made endorsement on notice that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Giriraj Supari Traders and accordingly he sent a notice U/s 14A to M/s Giriraj Supari Traders and thereafter, he deposited the one counterpart of CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 6 of 18 the sample in intact condition and a Memo VII in a sealed packed separately with the PA on 03.05.2006 and two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of memo of Form VII in a sealed packed and another separately with LHA on the same day. He also marked the copies of memo of Form VII with the impression of seal. He deposed that as per the report of PA, sample was found misbranded. He has also deposed regarding sending of the letter to M/s Giriraj Supari Traders, regarding the nomination and registration of the Firm with the Sales Tax. He has deposed that after completion of the investigations, the case file was sent to the Director, PFA and after taking his consent for prosecution, present complaint has been filed. The intimation letter along with PA report was also sent to the accused persons. He has placed on record vendor's receipt as Ex. PW1/A, notice in Form VI as Ex. PW1/B, Panchnama as Ex. PW1/C, receipt of deposition of sample counterparts with PA and LHA as Ex. PW1/E & Ex. PW1/F, notice U/s 14A to M/s Giriraj Supari Traders as Ex. PW1/D, PA report as Ex. PW1/G, reminder to M/s Girraj Supari Traders as Ex. PW1/I and Ex. PW1/J, the letter to CMO, Mathura as Ex. PW1/K, reply thereto as Ex. PW1/K1, letter to STO, Ward No. 79 as Ex. PW1/L, sanction for prosecution as Ex. PW1/M, complaint as Ex. PW1/N, intimation letter as Ex. PW1/O. CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 7 of 18
9. In the crossexamination, he admitted that vendor was retailer and not manufacturer. He denied the suggestion that by mentioning the word "within" in best before declaration, no person get prejudiced. In the crossexamination by counsel for accused no. 2 and 3, he deposed that he asked in respect of bill of purchase from the vendor, but same has not been produced till today. He admitted that vendor made endorsement in notice in Form VI that he will give the bill of supplier. He denied the suggestion that sample did not belong to M/s Giriraj Supari Traders.
10. PW2 Sh. Mittar Pal who was the Field Assistant and had accompanied the Food Inspector on 02.05.2006 deposed more or less as per the evidence of PW1. In the crossexamination, this witness stated that the vendor had not shown any bill of purchase at the time of sampling. Though, he disclosed that the same was purchased from M/s Girish Supari Traders.
11. PW3 Sh. V.P. Singh, SDM under whose supervision and direction, the Food Inspector had lifted the sample on 02.05.2006 from the premises of accused no. 1 has corroborated the statement of PW1 and PW2. In the crossexamination by accused no. 1, he stated that accused no. 1 is a petty shopkeeper. He admitted that vendor had disclosed at the spot as to wherefrom he had purchased the given food item.
12. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused no. 1 has CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 8 of 18 admitted about the lifting of the sample by the Food Inspector. However, he has taken a defence that said packet were purchased from M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders in sealed packets and he supplied the same to the Food Inspector in the same condition and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
13. Accused no. 2 and 3 in the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. while showing no knowledge of the other facts regarding the visit of Food Inspector on 02.05.2006 at the premises of accused no. 1, lifting of the sample of Sweet Supari, report of the Public Analyst took a plea that they have been wrongly and falsely implicated in this case. They claimed that the sample commodity does not at all belong to their company M/s Girraj Supari Traders, Mathura. It is also denied that sample commodity was manufactured or sold or supplied to M/s Soni Super Store directly or through salesman by accused company.
14. It is not in dispute that accused no. 1 was found conducting the business of Sweet Supari at M/s Soni Super Store and a raid was conducted on 02.05.2006, under the supervision of SDM / LHA Shri V.P. Singh and sample of Sweet Supari was lifted by FI Sh. Ranjeet Singh for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis who after analysing the same declared the sample misbranded because declaration CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 9 of 18 of 'statutory warning' and 'best before' were not as per Rule 42 ZZZ(6) and Rule 32i of PFA Act & Rules and there was complete violation of Rule 42 ZZZ(1) of PFA Act and Rules. The report of Public Analyst has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/G.
15. From the crossexamination of PWs and statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the defence of the accused no. 1 is that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Girraj Supari Traders i.e. accused no. 3 of which accused no. 2 is the Nominee. Hence, the accused no. 1 has sought protection U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act.
16. On the other hand, accused no. 2 and 3 have denied in their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that sample commodity was manufactured or sold or supplied to M/s Soni Supar Store by their company directly or through sales man.
17. Section 19 (2) of PFA Act provides as under: "A Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves
(a) that he purchased the article of food
(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,
(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribe form; and
(b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it." CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 10 of 18
18. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the accused no. 1 has been able to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3 and sold the same in the same condition as purchased by him and, therefore, he is entitled for protection U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act.
19. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that accused no. 1 had not produced or shown any Bill of Purchase or invoice to the Food Inspector at the time of sample proceedings to show that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3 company. PW1 FI Ranjeet Singh who conducted the sample proceedings stated in his cross examination that he had asked in respect of bill of purchase from the vendor but the same could not be produced till date. He admitted that vendor made endorsement on Notice in form VI that he will give the bill of supplier. He stated that he had not taken the sample from M/s Giriraj Supari Traders as he was not competent to lift the sample from Mathura. Similarly, PW2 Mittar Pal, FA who was made a witness in sample proceedings stated in his crossexamination that the vendor had not shown any Purchase Bill at the time of sampling, however, he had disclosed that the same was purchased from M/s Girraj Supari Traders, Regd. Mathura Bypass, Mathura, UP. He further stated that it had been disclosed that it was not so purchased directly from the aforesaid concern, but some salesman had come to the shop of the CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 11 of 18 vendor and had supplied the same.
20. From the aforesaid statement of PWs, it is evident that the accused no. 1 had not shown any Bill of Purchase to the Food Inspector at the time of sampling nor has placed on record the same later on to prove his case that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Girraj Supari Traders i.e. accused no. 3 of which accused no. 2 is the Nominee. Though, accused no. 1 has taken a defence that Bill was not prepared at the time of purchase of sample commodity, but the accused no. 1 has not led any evidence to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3, but he had not been supplied any Bill or invoice and the contention of accused no. 1 remained unsubstantiated in the absence of any evidence on record.
21. In view of above, as the onus was upon the accused no. 1 to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3 company and sold the same in the same condition as purchased by him to the Food Inspector at the time of sample proceedings, but the accused no. 1 has miserably failed to prove the same. Hence, accused no. 1 cannot be said to be entitled for warranty U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act as prayed by him and for the same reason, the accused no. 2 and 3 cannot be held liable for prosecution. Accordingly, accused no. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the charges CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 12 of 18 leveled against them.
22. So far the liability of the accused no. 1 is concerned, admittedly the sample commodity was lifted by the Food Inspector from accused no. 1 and as the accused no. 1 has failed to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused no. 1.
23. From the report of Public Analyst Ex. PW/1G, it is apparent. that there is no allegations of adulteration in the sample commodity of Sweet Supari and the sample failed only on account of misbranding. As per report of Public Analyst, the sample was misbranded because 'Language of statutory warning' and 'best before declaration' are not as per Rule 42 (ZZZ)(6) and Rule 32i and there is also violation of Rule 42 ZZZ(1) of PFA Act and Rules.
24. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the relevant provisions of law which are being reproduced as under: Rule 42 ZZZ(1) "Every package of food which is permitted to contain artificial sweetener mentioned in table given in [rule 47, and an advertisement for such food]shall carry the following label, namely:
(i) This................(Name of food) contains...........(Name of artificial sweetener) CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 13 of 18
(ii) Not recommended for children.
(iii) (a) Quantity of sugar added....................gm/100gm.
(b) No sugar added in the product.
(iv) Not for Phenylketoneuric (if Aspertame is added)"
Rule 42 ZZZ(6) "Every Package of supari and advertisement relating thereto shall carry the following warning in conspicuous and bold print, namely: [Chewing of Supari is Injurious to Health]"
Rule 32 "Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be specified on every label :
(a) to (h)...........
(i) the month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for consumption , in the following manner, namely:
"BEST BEFORE........MONTHS AND YEAR"
OR "BEST BEFORE........MONTHS FROM PACKAGING"
OR "BEST BEFORE........MONTHS FROM MANUFACTURER"
OR "BEST BEFORE........UPTO MONTH AND YEAR" (For the period OR upto and inclusive "BEST BEFORE WITHIN........MONTHS FROM of 1st September , THE DATE OF PACKAGING/MANUFACTURE" 2001) CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 14 of 18
25. As per the case of the prosecution, there was no compliance of Rule 42 ZZZ(6), Rule 32i & 42 ZZZ(1) as 'Language of statutory warning' and 'best before declaration' imprinted on label of the sample commodity were not as per rule. It is apparent from Notice in Form VI Ex. PW 1/B that under the head 'Details of Food', Sweet Supari: For Sale has been mentioned. In the ingredients of Sweet Supari, among the other ingredients Sachrin has also been shown. Under Best before declaration, 'Best Before within six (6) months from the date of Packaging" is written and under Statutory Warning, "Chewing of Supari may be injurious to health' is written.
26. However, as per Rule 42 (ZZZ) (1) as quoted above, the label/warning 'Not recommended for children' is required to be given in the package of Sweet Supari, which has not been given in the package of sample commodity of Sweet Supari. Similarly, the warning as envisaged under Rule 42 (ZZZ) (6) i.e "Chewing of Supari is Injurious to Health' has not been written as per the rule and same has been written as "Chewing of Suprai may be injurious to Health." As such, it is apparent that there is violation of Rule 42 (ZZZ) (1) and Rule 42 (ZZZ) (6) of PFA Rules.
27. Not only this, as per rule 32 (i) of PFA Rules, the 'Best Before
--Months and Year' or Best Before - Months from Packaging or 'Best CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 15 of 18 Before - Months from Manufacture' is to be written, but in the present case, sample commodity of Sweet Supari declared the label as "Best before within 6 months from date of packaging", which is again not in consonance with Rule 32 (i) of PFA Rules 1955 as the word "within" stood omitted after 01.09.2001.
28. The Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 has argued that from mere use of word "within" in the label of the sample commodity, it cannot be said that there is violation of Rule 32 (i) of the PFA Rules 1955. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ram Babu Rastogi & Ors Vs. State Crl MC No. 1360/2011. In the said case also, the allegation of misbranding against the petitioners were that the sample product declared the label as "Best before within 6 months from date of packaging". The only grievance of the Department was that the word "within" which stood omitted after 01.09.2001 was added by the petitioners in the label and that made the same as misbranded because of clear violation of Rule 32 (i). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after referring the other judgments of Hon'ble Madras High Court held that, "Mere use of work "within" as a surplusage would not bring the petitioners under the penal provisions of the Act. By any means, the purchasers could not be said to have been deceived or misled as regard the CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 16 of 18 character, quantity, quality or date of manufacture and the limit of use of the product."
29. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority, the accused no. 1 cannot be said to have violated the Rule 32 (i) of PFA Rules. However, it has come on record that there is violation of Rule 42 (ZZZ) (1) and 42 (ZZZ) (6) of PFA Act and Rules.
30. The Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 has argued that no written warning was given to the accused no. 1 before filing the complaint against him and it is not a case of second violation and hence no complaint could have been filed against the accused no. 1 for the first offence for violation of the provisions relating to label declaration under PFA Rules. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Gupta Tea Traders & Ors. Vs. State 2012 (2) FAC
415.
31. I have gone through the aforesaid authority relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1. In the said case, ratio of judgment passed in S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors Vs. State, through Food Inspector was applied by the Hon'ble Delh High Court by which the petitioners were granted benefit of policy of the Department whereby violation of label declaration under Rule 32 was to be condoned for the first time offender. CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 17 of 18 But, in the present case, accused no. 1 has been prosecuted for the violation of Rule 42 (ZZZ) (1) and Rule 42 (ZZZ) (6) which are not covered under the said policy, hence the said authority relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
32. In view of aforesaid discussion and observations, as the accused no. 1 has failed to prove that he had purchased the sample commodity from accused no. 3 of which accused no. 2 is the Nominee, the accused no. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. However, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused no. 1 and accordingly accused no. 1 is held guilty for the violation of Rule 42(ZZZ) (6) & 42 ZZZ(1) of PFA Rules 1955 and provision of section 2(ix)
(k) of PFA Act, punishable under section 16 (1) (a) r/w S. 7 of PFA Act 1954.
33. Put up for arguments / order on quantum of sentence for 15.05.2013.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 8th May, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 241/06
FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 18 of 18
CC No. 241/06
DA Vs. Tulsi Dass Etc.
08.05.2013
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused no. 1 with the counsel Sh. M.L. Narang
Accused no. 2 (representing accused no. 3 as well) is present with Counsel, Shri O.P. Khandelwal.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused no. 2 & 3 stand acquitted of the charges leveled against them. However, accused no. 1 stands convicted.
Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond of accused no. 2 and 3 stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled. Accused no. 2 and 3 are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have furnished B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 15,000/. Same are accepted.
Put up for arguments and order on quantum of sentence qua accused no. 1 on 15.05.2013.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/08.05.2013 CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 19 of 18 IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI C.C. No. 241/06 Food Inspector Department of PFA Govt. of NCT of Delhi A20, Lawrence Road Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 ................. Complainant Versus
1. Sh. Tulsi Das S/o Late Sh. Datu Ram M/s Soni Super Store, 1586, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31 R/o 853, Prem Gali No. 3C, Multani Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi31 ..................VendorcumProprietor
2. Sh. Bal Mukund Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Rattan Sharma M/s Shri Girraj Supar Traders Delhi Mathura Bypass, Mathura, UP R/o Village Chhatikara, PO Chhatikara (Acquitted vide order ThanaVrindavan, Distt Mathura, UP dated 08.05.2013 ..................Nominee/Licencee of SuppliercumMfg. Firm CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 20 of 18
3. M/s Shri Girraj Supari Traders, Delhi Mathura Bypass, (Acquitted vide order Mathura, U.P. Dated 08.05.2013) ..................Supplier/Mfg. Firm ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Shri Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for the Complainant.
Convict with counsel Shri M.L. Narang.
Heard on quantum of sentence.
Ld. Counsel for convict no. 1 submits that the convict is 65 years of age and is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of wife and 6 children. He has further argued that the allegations against the accused of misbranding only and therefore a lenient view may be taken.
On the other hand Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that the offences under the PFA Act are socioeconomic offences and appropriate punishment may be awarded to the convict as per law.
Considering the aforesaid submission, as the law prescribes for the minimum punishment of 6 months and also fine for the offences for which the convicts has been held guilty, therefore, keeping in view the facts and CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 21 of 18 circumstances of the case, the convict is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ ( Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default S.I. for 15 days. Fine paid.
At this stage an application under section S. 389 (3) Cr. P.C is moved on behalf of the convict seeking suspension of sentence to enable him to file the appeal and to release him on bail. Heard. The convict is admitted to bail U/s 389(3) Cr. P.C. on furnishing Bail Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount. B/B furnished and accepted.
Copy of the judgment as well as order on sentence supplied to the convict free of cost against receipt.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 15 May, 2013 th ACMMII/ PHC/New Delhi CC No. 241/06 FI Vs. Tulsi Das Etc. Page 22 of 18