Delhi District Court
Da vs . Kishore Jain Page 1 Of 45 on 25 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 283/03
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT,
1954
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
Sh. Kishore Jain
S/o Sh. D.R. Jain,
M/s Jain Rice Traders,
148A, Hastsal Road, New Delhi
R/o RZ49, Manas Kunj,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
........ VendorcumProprietor
Serial number of the case : 283/03
Date of the commission of the offence : 24.02.2003
Date of filing of the complaint : 21.07.2003
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 1 of 45
Name of the Complainant : Sh. V.P.S. Choudhary, Food
Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : Section 2 (ia) (a) (j) & (m) of PFA
Act 1954 and Rule 23, 28 & 29 of
PFA Rules, 1955, punishable U/s
16(1A) r/w section 7 of the PFA
Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted.
Arguments heard on : 25/02/14
Judgment announced on : 25/02/14
Brief facts of the case
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2003 at about 04.45
p.m, Food Inspectors V.P.S. Choudhary. and R.K. Bhaskar under the supervision and
directions of SDM / LHA M.A. Ashraf visited M/s Jain Rice Traders, 148A, Hastsal
Road, New Delhi, where accused Kishore Jain was found present conducting the
business of various food articles including Dal Masoor, for sale for human
consumption and in compliance of the provisions of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the Act & Rules) the Food Inspector collected / purchased
the sample of Dal Masoor.
2. It is further the prosecution's case that the sample was sent to Public
Analyst for analysis and as per the report of Public Analyst the sample was adulterated
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 2 of 45
because it was found "coloured with synthetic colour matter viz. sunset yellow fcf"
and accordingly after obtaining the necessary Sanction / Consent under Section 20 of
the Act the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a)
(j)and (m) of PFA Act 1954 and r/w Rule 23, 28 & 29 of PFA Rules 1955, punishable
U/s 16 (1A) r/w Section 7 of the Act.
3. After the complaint was filed, the accused was summoned vide orders
dated 21.07.2003.
4. In pre charge evidence, the prosecution examined one witness i.e. the
the Food Inspector V.P.S. Choudhary as PW1 and pre charge evidence was closed
vide order dated 03.07.2009.
5. Charge for violation of provision of Section 2 (ia) (a) (j) & (m) of PFA Act
1954 r/w Rule 23, 28 & 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 03.07.2009 to which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, in post charge evidence the prosecution examined three
witnesses including the Food Inspector V.P.S. Choudhary as PW1, Food Inspector
R.K Bhaskar as PW2 and Sh. M.A. Ashraf, SDM/LHA as PW3 and PE was closed vide
order dated 29.05.2010.
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 3 of 45
7. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 25.02.2013
wherein the accused claimed himself to be innocent. Accused did not lead DE despite
opportunity given.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:
8. PW1 V.P.S. Choudhary deposed that on 24.02.2003 he along with FI
R.K. Bhaskar under the supervision of LHA/SDM Mr. M.A. Ashraf visited M/s Jain Rice
Traders, 148A, Hastsal Road, New Delhi where accused Kishore Jain was found
conducting the business of food articles stored there for sale for human consumption
including Dal masoor, which was contained in an open gunny bag with no label
declaration and were ready for sale. He deposed that he disclosed his identity and
intention to the accused for purchasing the sample of Dal masoor for analysis to which
the accused agreed. He further deposed that he made efforts to join some passersby,
customers and neighbouring shopkeepers in the proceedings but none came forward
and on his FI R.K. Bhaskar was joined as witness in sample proceedings. He deposed
that at about 04.45 p.m. he purchased approximately 1.5 Kg of Dal masoor from the
accused on payment of Rs. 39/ vide Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that before taking the
sample the dal masoor in question was properly mixed up with the help of clean and
dry jhaba by rotating the same in all possible directions. He deposed that he divided
the sample quantity into 3 equal parts by putting the same in three separate clean and
dry bottles and each part was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed as per
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 4 of 45
law and LHP slips bearing his code number and signature were pasted on each bottle.
He deposed that accused signed the same in a manner that his signatures appeared
partly on slips as well as on wrappers. He deposed that he prepared notice Ex.
PW1/B and Panchnama Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that accused also received a copy
of the notice. He deposed that all the documents were read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi and after understanding the same, accused signed at point A on
each document, witness at point C and he signed the same at point B respectively.
9. He further deposed that on 25.02.2003 he deposited in the office of PA
one sealed counterpart along with copy of Form VII containing specimen seal
impression of the seal used and one more copy of Form VII having same seal
impression in separate seal packet for analysis vide receipt Ex. PW1/D. On the same
day the other two counterparts along with two copies of Form VII having same seal
impression in sealed packet were deposited with LHA vide receipt Ex. PW1/E under
intimation that one counterpart has already been deposited with PA for analysis
because 10 and 11 November were holidays in LHA office. He further deposed that
Public Analyst's report Ex. PW 1/F revealed that sample was adulterated due to the
presence of synthetic colouring matter i.e. Sunset Yellow FCF. He deposed that he
conducted further investigation and found that accused was the person who look after
the business of the shop. He deposed that accused made statement Ex. PW1/G
bearing his signature at point A claiming himself as the sole proprietor and person
responsible to look after the business of same. He deposed that he collected the STO
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 5 of 45
reply Ex. PW1/H. He deposed that after conclusion of the investigation the file was
sent to the then Director of PFA through LHA who gave consent order Ex. PW1/J and
the complaint Ex. PW1/K was filed by him. He deposed that after filing of the
complaint intimation letter Ex. PW1/L along with PA report was sent to the accused
through registered post vide receipt Ex. PW1/M having relevant entries at point A and
B which were not received back undelivered.
10. During his cross examination he stated that he cannot comment that two
counterparts of a representative sample are analyzed by two experts then their
analytical report would be similar and identical. He stated that he is M.Sc (chemistry)
and LLB. He stated that to his knowledge there is no difference between artificial
colouring matter and colour and both are colours. He denied the suggestion that being
a qualified person he is avoiding to give relevant answer. He admitted that Sunset
Yellow is one of the food colour and is permissible to be added in sweet and
confectionery items. He voluntarily stated that but upto certain limits. He stated that
he cannot comment that upto certain limit the colour sunset yellow is not injurious to
health. He admitted that the food colours mentioned under Rule 28 of PFA Rules are
water soluble. He stated that he cannot comment that Dals are generally washed
before cooking. He admitted that the PA has not mentioned in his Report that the
adulteration in sample commodity was injurious to health. He admitted that the
quantity of synthetic colour found therein has not been mentioned by the Director CFL
in his report dated 07.10.2003. He voluntarily stated that generally the CFL report
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 6 of 45
does not mention the quantity of colours in cases of sample of Dal. He stated that he
cannot comment that the colour detected by the CFL may be in traces. He stated that
he cannot comment that by the presence of colour the sample commodity the
purchaser does not get prejudiced. He admitted that the accused was not the
manufacturer of the sample commodity. He stated that he cannot admit or deny that
accused was a petty shopkeeper. He voluntarily stated that he was a shopkeeper. He
denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated.
11. PW2 R.K. Bhaskar, the FI/witness and PW3 M.A. Ashraf, the then
SDM/LHA deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief.
12. This so far is the prosecution evidence in the matter.
13. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the Ld. defence counsel
as also the Ld. SPP for complainant. I have also carefully gone through the evidence
recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the
prosecution in this case.
14. After hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful
scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has successfully brought home the guilt against the accused.
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 7 of 45
15. It stands unambiguously proved from the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses especially Food Inspector V.P.S. Choudhary coupled with the report of the
Director, CFL dated 07.10.2003 that accused Kishore Jain was indeed found selling
Dal Masoor which was adulterated on account of it containing synthetic colour viz.
Sunset yellow FCF.
16. The star / the material witness of the prosecution i.e. Food Inspector
V.P.S. Choudhary categorically proved that on 24.02.2003 he along with Food
Inspector R.K. Bhaskar and SDM / LHA M.A. Ashraf visited the shop of accused
Kishore Jain who was found present conducting the business of various food articles
including Dal masoor, for sale for human consumption and in compliance of the
provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act & Rules) he collected
/ purchased the sample of Dal masoor. He proved the sample proceedings vide Ex.
PW 1/A to Ex. PW 1/C. He further proved the deposit of the sample with the Public
Analyst and deposit of the counterparts of the sample with the Local Health Authority
vide Ex. PW 1/D and E. He further proved that the Dal masoor on analysis by the
public analyst vide his report Ex. PW1/F was found adulterated as it was containing
synthetic colour sunset yellow FCF. The Sanction / Consent for prosecution was
proved as Ex. PW 1/J and the complaint was proved as Ex. PW 1/K.
17. The deposition of the Food Inspector was duly corroborated by the
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 8 of 45
remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. PW2 FI R.K. Bhaskar and the then SDM/LHA
M.A. Asharf i.e. PW3.
18. Furthermore the fact that the sample was collected/lifted by the Food
Inspector on 24.02.2003 as well as that the accused was the vendor was not disputed
during the trial and was also admitted by the accused during his examination under
Section 313 Cr. P.C as recorded before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on
25.02.2013. From the answers given by the accused to question no. 1 & 2 which are
admissible in evidence against the accused in view of sub clause (4) of Section 313
Cr. P.C as well as the law laid down in Benny Thomas Vs. Food Inspector, Kochi
2008 (1) FAC 1 (SC), Mohan Singh V. Prem Singh, (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)
842, Rattan Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (SC) 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 768, Sh.
Mith Kalitha V. State of Assam 2006 Cr. L.J. 2570, State of Rajasthan V.
Ganesh Dass 1995 Cr. L.J. 25 (Raj.), Bishwas Prasad Sinha V. State of Assam
2007 (1) Crimes 147 (SC), Anthoney Disuja V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC
258, State of H.P. V. Wazir Chand AIR 1978 SC 315 coupled with the statement of
the accused as made by him vide Ex. PW1/G no dispute remains that the sample of
Dal masoor was indeed collected by the Food Inspector for analysis from M/s Jain
Rice Traders of which accused Kishore Jain is the vendorcum proprietor.
19. During the course of arguments, Ld. defence counsel appearing for
accused argued that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt against
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 9 of 45
the accused. It was argued that the prosecution story suffers from various loopholes /
contradictions.
Public witness
20. At the outset it was argued that no public witness was joined by the Food
Inspector (FI) during the alleged sample proceedings which is in violation of section 10
(7) and therefore the accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground alone. It was
argued that the FI despite the mandate of section 10 (7) did not deliberately join any
public person i.e. customers, neighbourers etc. in the sample proceedings. However I
do not agree with the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence counsel. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shriram Labhaya Vs. MCD
, decided on 26.02.1974
has categorically
held that testimony of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, is sufficient to convict the
accused and there is no requirement of independent corroboration by public persons
unless the testimony suffers from fatal inconsistencies. Similarly in Babu Lal Vs.
State, AIR 1971, SC 1277 It has been held that there is no rule of law that a conviction
can not be based on the sole testimony of Food Inspector. Reliance may also be
placed upon Prem Ballabh Vs. State, AIR 1979, SC 56 , Madan Lal Sharma Vs.
State of Assam, 1999(2) FAC 180, MCD Vs. Banwari Lal 1972 FAC 655, MCD Vs.
Pyare Lal 1972 FAC 679 , Ram Gopal Aggarwal Vs. S.M. Mitra 1989(2) FAC 339,
Laxmidhar Saha Vs. State of Orissa 1989 (1) FAC 364, Food Inspector Vs.
Satnarian 2002 (5) SCC 373, Sukhbir Singh Vs. State 2002 (2) JCC 9 and State
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 10 of 45
Vs. Narayanasamy 1997 (2) FAC 203.
State
21. In Vs. Mohd. Hanif, 1992 (2) FAC 175 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as under:
"It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need
corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is not
inherently suspicious nor be rejected on that ground. He discharges the public
function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so
purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required
to take action as per law. He discharges public duty. His evidence is to be tested on
its own merits and if found acceptable, the Court would be entitled to accept and rely
on it to prove the prosecution case.".
22. In Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) FAC 131, it was held as
under:
"In our system of administration of justice no particular number of witnesses is
necessary to prove or disprove a fact. If the testimony of a single witness is found
worth reliance, conviction of an accused may safely be based on such testimony. In
our system we follow the maxim that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. It is
the "quality" and not the "quantity" of the evidence which matters in our system. This
cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence in a case has been given a statutory
recognition in Section 134 of the Evidence Act of 1872.............................There is no
rule of law that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness cannot be believed
and relied upon. The only rule applicable in the cases of single testimony is that of
prudence and care and caution and such rule requires that such cases must be
approached with the views as to whether the evidence of the witness, when read as a
whole, appears to be having a ring of truth in and around it. The maxim "Falsus in
Uno. Falsus in Omnibus" does not apply criminal trials as it is the duty of the Court to
separate the grain from chaff and to disengage the truth from falsehood. The easy
course of rejecting the evidence in its entirety on nonfoundational infirmities and
discrepancies cannot be adopted in the search of truth in the evidence. The real test
to be applied in the appreciation of evidence in a given case is as to how consistent
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 11 of 45
the story is with itself, how it stands the test of crossexamination and how far it fits in
with rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The veracity of a witness
is to be judged not solely from his individual statement but from his testimony taken in
conjunction with all their facts brought in the course of his testimony.".
23. The two prosecution witnesses apart from the Food Inspector i.e.
SDM/LHA and FI R.K. Bhaskar duly corroborated the testimony of the Food Inspector
on material particulars. It is writ large from the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that
FI V.P.S. Choudhary made sincere efforts to join the public persons in the sample
proceedings but none agreed. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It is very hard
these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal
investigation/implementation of administrative powers/enforcement of law seeking to
curb anti social evils. Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any
inconvenience for the sake of society. I find no reasons why the Food Inspector or the
SDM would falsely implicate the accused or depose falsely against him. Absence of
public witness in this case is not fatal to the prosecution as the prosecution story
inspires confidence and lifting of the sample stands unambiguously proved.
Rule 14
24. It was one of the arguments that there was violation of Rule 14 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 at the time of sampling. It was argued
that at the time when the sample was collected, the Food Inspector failed to clean the
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 12 of 45
bottles as well as the instrument i.e. jhaba with which the sample was poured in the
container. It was argued that the colour was already sticking to the jhaba when the
Dal was taken out from the gunny bag for sampling. It was argued that Rule 14 of the
Act is mandatory and not directory and in case there is no strict adherence to Rule 14,
benefit has to be given to the accused.
25. However I differ with the contentions as raised by the Ld. defence
counsel.
26. I have heard the Ld. defence counsel, gone through Rule 14 and the
case laws relied upon by the Ld. defence counsel and perused the deposition of the
Food Inspector and other complainant witnesses. After going through the material
available on record and the law cited by the Ld. defence counsel, I am of the opinion
that there was no violation of Rule 14 in this case. Rule 14 of the Act envisages that at
the time when the Food Inspector collects the sample, he shall ensure that not only the
container is clean but it is also dried. Furthermore the container should be such so as
to prevent any leakage, evaporation and in case of dry substance entrance of
moisture. The container/bottles should be sealed carefully to avoid the above. While
sampling the various types of articles of food, the Food Inspector should make use of
clean and dry appliances. He should use clean and dry spoon or other instruments
for sampling and avoid using his own hands to make the same. Furthermore he
should sample the article in hygienic conditions. Reliance may be placed upon
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 13 of 45
Varghese Vs. Food Inspector, 1989(2) FAC 236.
27. I have perused the deposition of the Food Inspector i.e. V.P.S.
Choudhary who was examined as PW1. The Food Inspector deposed as under:
"Before taking the sample the dal masoor in question was properly mixed
up with the help of clean and dry jhabba by rotating the same in all possible directions.
I divided the sample quantity into 3 equal parts by putting same in three separate
clean and dry bottles.
28. During his crossexamination no single suggestion was given to the
witness that the Jhaba or the sample bottles were not clean and dry or that some
colour was sticking to it. The deposition of the Food Inspector thus went unchallenged
and I find no reasons to disbelieve his testimony.
29. Similarly PW2 FI R.K. Bhaskar deposed as under:
" The sample was taken by proper mixing it with help of clean and dry
jhaba by rotating it in all possible direction several times. FI V.P.S. Chaudhary divided
the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and
dry glass bottles"
30. During his cross examination he stated as under:
"Bottles were already dry and clean and the same were not made again
dry and clean at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that sample failed due to bad
sampling".
31. PW3 the then SDM/LHA Sh. M.A. Ashraf deposed as under:
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 14 of 45
"The sample was taken by proper mixing it with help of clean and dry
jhaba by rotating it in all possible direction several times. FI V.P.S. Chaudhary divided
the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and
dry glass bottles"
32. During his cross examination he stated as under:
"Bottles were already dry and clean and the same were not made again
dry and clean at the spot. Jhaba was already clean and dry as such same was not
made again clean at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that bottles as well as Jhaba
were not clean and dry or that sample failed due to bad sampling"
33. Hence the prosecution witnesses consistently deposed regarding the
jhaba as well as the sample bottles being clean and dry. I have no reasons to
disbelieve them. Nothing on record has been proved to the contrary i.e. the defence
has not proved that the Food Inspector did not comply with the provisions of the Rule
14. Just because the defence is challenging the sampling process conducted by the
Food Inspector / asserting that Rule 14 was violated is not sufficient to either
disbelieve or throw away / outrightly reject the testimony of the Food Inspector. I find
no reasons why the Food Inspector would depose falsely or falsely implicate the
accused, there being no previous enmity against him. I have also gone through
Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 114 reads as under:
" The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to
have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of
the particular case."
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 15 of 45
Clause (e) of the above provision reads as under:
" That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed"
34. The above provisions and the legislation is based upon the maxim
"omnia praesumuntor rite esse acta" i.e. all acts are presumed to have been rightly
and regularly done. This presumption chiefly applied to official acts. It means that an
official act is proved to have been done, it would be presumed to have been regularly
done. The presumption under Section 114 (e) could only be nullified by clear and
cogent evidence to the contrary (State of Haryana Vs. Anil Kumar, 2004 (1)
Punj. LR 69 ,
Zeenat Vs. Prince of Wales & c, A 1971 P 43, Sheo Darshan Vs.
Assessar, 5 OLJ 179)".
35. In Rattan Lal Aggarwal Vs. State of Assam, 1993 Crl LJ. 2757
(Guh.) it was observed that irregularity is not to be presumed but a partly alleging
it may prove it. It was observed that, "The Local (Health) Authority is a public official.
The act of the Local (Health) Authority in despatching a copy of its report of analysis of
a food article with necessary intimation or information is an official act. When the act
has been shown to have been performed, it is open to the court in its discretion to
draw the presumption that the act has been performed regularly. If there is acceptable
evidence to show that the Local (Health Authority) has forwarded the document, by
virtue of illustration (e) to section 114, the court may presume that it was forwarded
regularly, i.e. as required in section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 16 of 45
1954 and Rule 9A of the Rules."
36. In the face of clear statement of the Food Inspector that he has taken the
proceedings of taking sample and sealing according to Rules, a presumption can be
drawn that the bottles were dry and clean [Nagar Parishad Alwar Vs. Ganga Lahiri,
1982 Cri LJ 2325, State of Assam Vs. Purammal Agarwalla, 1985 Cri LJ 46,
Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality Vs. Abdulla Haji, (1986) Cri LJ (Ker) 1
and Nirmal Kumar Vs. State, 1987 Cri LJ 46, 51
.].
37. In Jitendera Vs. State of M.P., 2002 (2) MPLJ 157 while dealing with
Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court observed that it is not a proper
approach to proceed with doubt or disbelief unless there is something to excite
suspicion. Same was observed in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
(2002) 5 FAC 234.
38. In State of Gujarat Vs. Manna Bhai Hasan Ali, 1999(1) FAC 243, it
was observed as under:
"The Food Inspector and the Public Analyst are public servants.......once it is
satisfactorily established that the Food Inspector after taking the sample divided in into
three parts, sealed the same, forwarded one of the parts to the Public Analyst, for
analysis, it can be safely said that the procedure details as to the prescribed manner
of doing these Acts has been followed...The court would be justified in drawing a
presumption that the procedure has been followed.".
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 17 of 45
39. In Babu Bhai Hargovind Das Vs. State, 1970 GLR 530, it was
observed as under:
"It would not be unreasonable to assume that they would exercise those powers and
discharge those duties in accordance with these provisions.".
40. In Pyare Mohan Vs. The State 1972 FAC 79, it was further observed
by the Hon'ble High Court as under:
"there is no provision or requirement of law that the bottles must be sterilized at the
time of taking of the sample in the presence of the witnesses.". Similarly was held in
P.A. Anil Vs. Food Inspector 2009 (2) FAC 43.
41. Thus, there is no force in the averments made by the Ld. defence
counsel.
Homogenization / Mixing of Sample.
42. It was also one of the arguments of the Ld. defence counsel that the
sample was not properly mixed / homogenized at the time when it was lifted and
accordingly the sample which were sent to PA and Director, CFL were not
"representative" and this is the reason why there is variations in the report of Public
Analyst and Director, CFL. It was further argued that there was variations in the report
of the Public Analyst for example the Public Analyst found the moisture at 8.95%, the
Director found the same to be 8.17%, the damaged grains were found by the PA at
0.31% whereas the Director found them to be Nil. Similarly the PA did not find any
weevilled grains but the Director found them to be 1%. This variation being more than
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 18 of 45
0.3% which is the permissible limit proves that the sample were not representative.
Reliance was placed upon Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219, State Vs.
Suresh Kumar, 2010 (2) FAC 2004, State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. 2008 (1)
FAC 170, and State (DA) Vs. Kamal Dev Vashisht 2012 (2) FAC 353.
43. However I find no merits in the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel. Firstly
the Food Inspector and the other complainant witnesses categorically stated that the
sample was taken after mixing the Dal masoor properly by rotating it in all possible
directions several times. I have no reasons to disbelieve the Food Inspector or the
other complainant witnesses in this regard. Moreover, there was no requirement of
mixing or making the sample i.e. the Dal homogenized as such in view of the law laid
down in Dhian Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) FAC 272. It was laid down in
the above said case as under:
"In my opinion, the sample of lal mirch powder was not required to have been taken
after the entire red chilly powder contained in the tin had been made homogeneous. It
would bear repetition that red chilly powder was the same in the tin. It would not make
any different whether the sample was taken from the upper layer or from the bottom or
it was taken from the side. Food Inspector has stated that the sample was taken after
the entire chilly powder had been mixed in the tin. In State of Haryana Vs. Hukam
Chand, 1984 (1) FAC 250 it was laid down that the necessity of thoroughly mixing is
of common knowledge so far as milk is concerned as the upper layer of the milk
usually contains more of cream and this principle cannot be extended to the cases of
adulterated Atta. In 1992(1) FAC 283 (supra) it was observed that there is no
requirement either of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or the
rules framed thereunder that the contents of the foodstuff should be made
homogeneous before the sample is drawn. It is only the rule of prudence, which
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 19 of 45
requires that the contents of the foodstuff should be made homogeneous before the
sample is drawn but this rule of prudence does not apply to each and every foodstuff.
So this argument that the red chilly powder had not been homogenized before the
sample was drawn cannot be given any weight.......It cannot be adopted in the face of
a Division Bench judgment reported as 1984(1) FAC 250 (supra), Ajwain is not
required to be made homogeneous."
44. In State of Kerela Vs. Alassery Mohd. 1978 (1) FAC 145, the Hon.
Apex Court observed as under:
"If the food sold to the food inspector is proved to be adulterated, it is
immaterial whether the sample purchased by him is a representative sample or not of
the entire stock in possession of the person".
45. In Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin Vs. UKK Hasan anr. 1982
(2) FAC 133, it was observed in para 5 as under:
"It is now well settled law and is also clear from the special definition of 'sale' in clause
(xiii) of S.2 of the Act, that a purchase by Food Inspector for analysis is a sale under
the Act (See Food Inspector Vs. Charkathil Gapalan 1971 (2), SCC 322, M.R.
Ruparel vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 128, State of U.P. vs. Kartar
Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135 and Sarjoo Prasad vs. State of U.P., 1975 (1) FAC 221).
If an article of food sold to a Food Inspector is proved to be adulterated, it is
immaterial whether the sample purchased by him is a representative sample or not of
the entire stock. "A person who stores or sells such sample is liable to be punished
under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act" (see State of Kerela vs. Alassery Mohammad
(supra).
46. It was further observed at para 6 as under:
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 20 of 45
"Therefore the question whether the sample taken by the Food Inspector
is representative sample does not arise for consideration at all. How a sample would
be representative must necessarily depend on the nature of the goods sold and the
usual mode of supply to the customer when he comes to purchase. If there is
normally a practice of stirring and mixing when the food stuff concerned is sold to
customers from time to time representative sample would be that which is taken after
such stirring and mixing. If on the other hand the usual mode of sale is to take portions
by portions without any such stirring or mixing there can be no complaint that the
sample sold is not a representative sample. Ice cream is a commodity which is not
expected to lose its shape and form when the sale is effected. Ice cream when
liquefied is no longer treated as ice cream. It will not be taken by a customer ice cream
then. It is too unreasonable therefore to expect that a representative sample of Ice
cream could be taken by the Food Inspector only by stirring the entire mass of ice
cream available for sale and taking the sample thereafter. Hence there is no
justification to apply any rule of representative sampling.
47. In The Food Inspector Corporation of Cochin Vs. T.V. Hameed 1984
(1) FAC 47, while relying upon the law laid down by the Hon. Apex court in State of
Kerela vs. Alassery Mohammad it was observed as under:
"It has to be remembered that any person, not necessarily the Food
Inspector and not necessarily a government officer, is entitled to purchase an article of
food from a vendor and send it for analysis provided he follows the procedure
mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. If a private person purchases a portion of ice
cream from the respondent under Section 12 of the Act and causes the sample to be
analysed and if the sample is found to be adulterated, the vendor cannot turn round and find fault with the purchaser for not stirring the entire mass of the ice cream in the container or for not taking a section and stirring i before purchasing it. Equally so, at any rate, in the case of sale to the Food Inspector the vendor cannot come forward with such a complaint.
It was further observed:
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 21 of 45
"if the rule making authority backed by the expertise of such a committee (Central Committee for Food Standard) has not prescribed any particular manner of taking a sample of ice cream, I do not think it is for the court to lay down any such manner particularly a manner which is contrary to the ordinary course of business."
48. In MCD Vs. Sunder Lal & Anr. 1976 (1) FAC 57, which was a case of sample of Hing the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the language of the Indian Act does not require mixing and division of sample in every case regardless of whether the nature of the article requires it or not.
49. In Food Inspector Vs. Karingarappully, 1986 (1) FAC 238 relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Alassery's case 1978 (1) FAC 145 it was held as under:
"Neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision to the effect that the entire quantity of milk in the container in the possession of the vendor should be stirred before effecting the sale to the Food Inspector. If the normal mode of serving or selling a part of the milk contained in a larger container involves stirring the entire quantity, the vendor should have done it. If that is not the normal mode, that will not be done when the sale is made to the Food Inspector also."
50. In the case at hand not only from the deposition of the Food Inspector and the other prosecution witnesses as discussed above, it stands duly established that the Dal was properly mixed at the time of sampling but in view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that it being the case of Dal masoor it was not required to homogenize the Dal masoor.
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 22 of 45 Variations.
51. Coming to the second limb of arguments of the Ld. defence counsel that there is a variation of more than 0.3% in the report of Public Analyst qua the report of Director, CFL and accordingly in view of the law laid down in Kanshi Nath and Mahender's Kumar case the accused is entitled to acquittal as benefit has to be given to him for the variation in the two reports I find no merits in the same in view of law the laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K. Saraf & Anr. 1999 (1) FAC 8, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. M/s Lahsa Restaurant & Ors., 1980 (II) FAC 1991, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Pralhad Bhai Amba Lal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) FAC 26.
52. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. M/s Lahsa Restaurant & Ors, decided on 01.04.1980 observed as under:
"Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act says that the certificate of the Director shall supersede the report of the Public Analyst. That being so no support can be taken from the report of the Public Analyst to content that there was a variation in the report of the Public Analyst and that of Director, CFL in his certificate. By this wholly erroneous approach the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in holding that the sample lifted was not a representative sample."
53. In Shriram Rikh Vs. State & MCD 1978(1) FAC 253, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 23 of 45
"The counsel in support of his contention relied upon Salim & Co. and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and State, 1977(1) F.A.C page 141 and Gyasi Ram Vs. The State, 1976 (II) F.A.C. page 213. In Salim & Co. and others Mr. Justice Gill held as under: "that there is no doubt that the Public Analyst had reported that the sample contained 75% foreign extraneous matter, which constituted adulteration. On the other hand, there was the candid opinion of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory that the sample of Dhania powder was not adulterated. It is correct that there is wide variation in the two reports, but according to subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the report of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The Statute has clearly provided as to what value should be attached to the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory qua that of the Public Analyst. Thus the report of the Public Analyst loses all its value after supersession by the certificate of the Director......"
It was further observed in para 3 as under:
"Under Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is conclusive and binding and the Courts are bound to decide the case on the basis of that report only.".
54. In Pralhad Bhai Amba Lal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) FAC 26, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchant Association Vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 246 and Chetumal Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1387 elaborately discussed the issue of 'variation' and held as under:
"Proviso to S. 13(5) also indicates that what is stated in the later certificate issued by the Director would be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated in the said certificate. It is obvious that the facts stated would be with respect to the result of the CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 24 of 45 analysis by the Director and the findings reached therein regarding relevant ingredients of the part of the sample sent for analysis and analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Once this type of conclusive evidence emerges on record, whatever might have been contraindicated regarding the concerned ingredients of the sample as found in the prior report of the public analyst would be totally pushed out of the arena of contest and cannot be looked at. If that is so, there would be no question of considering any variance between the results of the tests carried out by the public analyst on the one hand and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory on the other visavis two parts of the sample sample. Any variation or variance between the different ingredients mentioned in these two reports would presuppose comparison between two existing reports on record. But if one of the reports is wholly pushed out of record as enjoined by S. 13(3) read with S. 13(5), there is no question of resorting to the exercise of comparison between the contents of these two reports with a view to finding out the supposed variance between the existing and operative report of the Director and earlier report of the public analyst which has ceased to exist on record.".
"Once subsecs. (3) and (5) of S. 13 are kept in view, it is impossible to countenance the submission of the accused that despite these provisions, non existing report of the public anlayst can still be looked at for the purpose of finding out the alleged variance between the contents of that report and the superseding certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.".
55. In the above case while discussing the word 'supersede' which means to 'annul, to render void, obliterate, to repeal / to obliterate', the Hon'ble Full Bench held that once the report of Director is received the earlier report given by the Public Analyst is rendered ' obsolete ' and stands ' wiped out '.
56. In the above referred case while discussing and relying upon the Apex Court decision as reported in AIR 1981 SC 1387, the Hon'ble Full Bench further held CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 25 of 45 as under:
"It was further observed that once supersession take effect, it is not permissible to rely on the report of the public analyst for the purpose of basing a conviction. That is so because the report of the Director is made final and conclusive. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision held that the public analyst's report stood superseded by the certificate of the Director and once the certificate of the Director was found to be unreliable, there would not remain on record any evidence on which accused could be convicted. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that even in a converse case where the accused claims acquittal on the ground of any important variance between the earlier report of the public anlyast and the later certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory which supersedes it, it would not be open to the Court to rely upon the contents of the superseded report of the public analyst for doubting correctness of the certificate issued by the Director.".
57. Similar view was taken in case law laid down in V.B. Shukla Vs. Prakash, 1973 14 Guj LR 381 wherein it was held as under:
"According to S. 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst. It is of course true that on consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case it is always open to the Court to reject the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory as unreliable or insufficient for basing conviction, but to discard that report simply because the same is inconsistent with the report of the Public Analyst is tantamount to discarding the provisions contained in S. 13 of the Act which contemplates that it is open to the accused or the complainant to make an application to the Court for sending part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for a certificate.".
58. Similarly in State Vs. Kutubuddin Isafali, 1980 21(2) Guj LR 167 was also observed as under:
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 26 of 45
"It is thus clear that the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory not only supersedes the one issued by the Public Analyst but it is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In this view of the matter, when there is report of Central Food Laboratory, the report of the Public Analyst will, for all practical purposes, treated as nonexistent. The report of the Central Food Laboratory will be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and the question, therefore, of any comparison of that report with the report issued by the Public Analyst which has already been superseded does not arise. There are statutory provisions and they have to be strictly complied with.".
59. In Salim and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1978 Cri LJ 240, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
"It is correct that there is wide variation in the two reports, but according to subsec. (3) of S. 13 of the Act, the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the public analyst. The statute has clearly provided as to what value should be attached to the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory qua that of the public analyst. Thus, the report of the public analyst loses all its value after supersession by the certificate of the Director.".
In para 15 it has been further observed as under:
"It is the superseded report in which the learned trial Magistrate has tried to put life. For that matter, he called the public analyst and examined him as a Court witness. This procedure is not warranted by law. Instead of reviving the report of the analyst, he should have discarded the same.".
60. In MCD Vs. Ram Swarup 1976 (2) FAC 201, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"in the instant case whereas the public analyst found the presence of milk fat to the extent of 4.5% in the toned milk the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shows the milk fat as only 0.4%........Since under the law the report of the Director, CFL is conclusive and binding the case has to be decided on the basis of that report only.".CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 27 of 45
61. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Zahiruddin, 1972 FAC 134, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held "the question whether the milk was in a fit condition of analysis when analysed by the Director is a question of fact and it depends upon so many circumstances that in the absence of any evidence about the condition of sample the Courts cannot lay down any artificial rule that after a certain period has lapsed it must be presumed that the sample was not fit for analysis even when the Director analysed it and gave a certificate. If the respondent wished to rely on matters with respect to which the certificate of the Director is not conclusive evidence it was his duty to have led evidence as to the matter in which the sample had been kept during the period it was sent to the Director".
It was further held in para 11 to 14 as under:
"11. It is ridiculous that the learned Magistrate should have compared the report of the Public Analyst with the certificate issued by the Director. Under Section 13(5) of the Act the certificate issued by the Director has to be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, although no such presumption attached to the report of the Public Analyst. The certificate granted by the Director cannot therefore be disregarded.".
62. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai Chand 1972 651, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:
"According to subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act, the certificate issued by the Director regarding the result of analysis shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. In view of the above provision, the discrepancy in the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Director loses much of its significance. It also cannot be said that the constituents of the milk had undergone a change because of the discrepancy regarding the result of analysis between the certificate of the Director and the report of the Public Analyst. It is precisely to meet such a contingency wherein the certificate of the Director differs from the report of the Public Analyst that the legislature has provided that certificate of the Director shall supersede CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 28 of 45 the report of the Public Analyst."
63. In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Amrik Singh 1972 FAC 204, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, held as under:
"Therefore, having regard to sub section (3) and subsection (5) of Section 13 of the Act it is not possible to take into account the report of the Public Analyst where a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has subsequently come on record in accordance with the provisions of Section 13. Consequently, it would not be correct to say that there was variation between the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director as the first report of the public analyst stands completely wiped out by the certificate of the Director.".
64. In Mangal Das Raghav Ji & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1976 (1) FAC 43, the six judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The certificate issued by the Director would then supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. This certificate is not only made admissible in evidence under Sub Sec. (5) but is given finality to the facts contained therein by the proviso to that Sub Section".
65. In Hargo Lal Vs. State 1972 FAC 699, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that merely because there is a discrepancy between the report of the Public Analyst and the Director, CFL, it is no ground for rejecting the report of the Director, CFL as it completely wipes out the report of the Public Analyst.
66. In MCD Vs. Shri Manohar Lal & Anr., 1975 (1) FAC 182, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"This report was different in its import from the report of the Public Analyst but the CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 29 of 45 variation in the two reports is of no consequence because the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under subsection (2) of section 13 supersedes the report of the Public Analyst given under subsection (1) of the said Section and as per proviso appended to subsection (5) is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.".
67. Similarly in Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Baldev Raj 1975 (1) FAC 363, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court observed at para 10 as under:
"The finality and conclusiveness is attached to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded entirely on wrong premises in comparing the reports.".
68. In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Shadi Lal 1975 (2) FAC 411, it was observed at para 5 as under:
"Subsection (5) of section 13 clearly envisages that once the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been obtained the report of the Public Analyst cannot be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. This being the position, it is not open to the accused to contend that it was inconsistent with the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Once the report of the Director has been obtained, for all intents and purposes the report of the Public Analyst is to be ignored, as it cannot be used as evidence of any facts stated therein.".
69. So once there is a report of Director, CFL on record, no reference can be made to the report of the Public Analyst. The report can not be looked into at all for the purpose of comparison and thus to show the variations, if any. In Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K. Saraf & Anr 1999(1) FAC 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 30 of 45 observed as under:
"12. When the statue says that certificate shall supersede the report it means that the report would stand annulled or obliterated. The word "supersede" in law, means "obliterated, set aside, annul, replace, make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal" (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.). Once the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory reaches the court the Report of the Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it.
13. In the above context the provisio to subsection (5) can also be looked at which deals with the evidentiary value of such certificate. The material portion of the proviso is quoted below:
"Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.........shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein."
14. If a fact is declared by a statute as final and conclusive, its impact is crucial because no party can then give evidence for the purpose of disproving the fact. This is the import of Section 4 of the Evidence Act which defines three kinds of presumptions among which the last is "conclusive proof". "When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another the court shall, on proof of the one fact regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it".
15. Thus the legal impact of a Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is threefold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned.".
70. In The Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin Vs. T.V. Habeeb, 1984 (1) FAC 41, it was observed as under:
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 31 of 45
"It can thus be seen that it is settled law that the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the certificate of the Director which has conclusive effect also. Analysis in the two cases is done by different persons at different laboratories. It would not be surprising if, assuming the best conditions there is some difference in the results of the two analysis. Even in cases where sampling and analysis is done to the satisfaction of the most exacting standards, there could be variation in the percentage of different components arrived at in the two laboratories. But, once the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there is no report of the Public Analyst available in the eyes of law for comparison with the certificate issued by the Director. The court cannot, therefore, legitimately make such a comparison and conclude that there are divergences and therefrom draw an inference that the sampling must have been done improperly. To arrive at such a conclusion would amount to flying in the face of settled position of the law and the terms of subsections (3) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act".
71. In Subhash Chander Vs. State, Delhi Administration 1984 (1) FAC 113 it was observed as under:
"For all purposes the report of the public analyst is replaced by teh certificate of the Director. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975 (1) FAC 186, Chetmal v. State of M.P., 1981 (11) FAC 280 and Jagdish Prasad v. State of Delhi, 1982 (I) FAC 345. Supersede is a strong word. It means obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void, inefficacious or useless, repeal. the Director's certificate supersedes the report given by the public analyst. Once superseded it does not survive for any purpose. It will be anomalous to hold that for some purpose it survives and for other purposes it is superseded.
72. In C. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) FAC 275, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction despite the variation in the report of the PA and the Director, CFL being more than 1.083% as the court held that the report of the PA stood superseded.CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 32 of 45
73. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MCD Vs. Bishan Sarup which was decided on 11.03.1970 held as under:
"It is thus patent that according to the proviso to subsection (5) of the section 13 of the Act, the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive as to the state of the sample on the date on which the analysis was made. Under subsection (3), this certificate supersedes the report of the Public Analyst given under subsection (1) of the section 13 of the Act.
74. In Bishan Sarup's case as referred above despite the variation being much more than .3%, the accused was convicted.
75. Hence, once the report of the Public Analyst becomes annulled / obliterated how can any reference be made to the same. No defence lying on the report is tenable in the eyes of the law. That is the mandate of the statute as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, merely because there is a variation no presumption can be drawn that the sample which was sent to Director, CFL was not representative. I have perused the procedure / the rules laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to be followed by the Food Inspector at the time and after the sample is collected by him. As per Section 11 1(b), the Food Inspector has to divide the sample then and there in three parts and mark and seal or fasten upon each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken. As per Section 11 1(c) (i) & (ii) he has to send one of the part for analysis to the Public CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 33 of 45 Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local Health Authority. As per Section 13 (2 A) upon an application by the accused, the court directs the sample kept by the Local Health Authority to be produced before him for its onward transmission to the Director, CFL for its examination / analysis as contemplated in Section 13 (2B). Once the sample is produced before the court, the court meticulously scrutinizes the sample to check whether the seal, thumb impression or signature on the same are intact or not. The sample is shown to the accused and upon his satisfaction it is sent to the Director, CFL. Hence, there arises no question of changing the sample because of the above mentioned counter checks as enumerated in the Act. Furthermore, when the sample is sent to the Director, CFL it is under the seal of the court and the Director in his certificate reports that the sample has been received by him intact as send by the court. Therefore, once the sample has been collected by the Food Inspector remains duly sealed, is inspected by the court and the accused for counter checking the seal and signatures of the accused and thereupon send to the Director, CFL under the seal of the court no question of the sample being changed or not being representative arises. Reliance may be placed upon Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Lachman Dass 1978(1) FAC 211.
76. Moreover, it can not be the intention of the legislature that the person who has been found selling, offering for sale, manufacturing etc food articles which have been found to be adulterated upon examination by a Public Analyst as well as by Director, CFL i.e. two independent authorities be allowed to go scot free merely CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 34 of 45 because there is a difference or variation in the report of the Public Analyst & Director, CFL. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that once a food article has been found to be adulterated by two different agencies the accused may go unpunished solely on account of variance in the amount of / extent of adulteration. Doing so would defeat the entire purpose of the Act and shall have drastic consequences as adulteration of food is a menace to public health as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food (Isharpash Vs. State of Punjab 1972 CriLJ 874, Dayal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 CriLJ 2102.). In Murlidhar Meghraj Loya Vs. State of Maharashtra 1976 CriLJ 1527 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "any narrow and pedantic, literal construction likely to leave loopholes for the dangerous criminal tribe (adulterator) to sneak out of the meshes of the law should be discouraged".
77. Nonetheless, if the accused wants to prove that the report of the Director, CFL was incorrect i.e. the sample was unfit at the time of its analysis/ decomposed/ deteriorated or that his report or the method used by him for analysis were faulty nothing stopped him from calling the Director for cross examination. Once he does not exercise the right he cannot complain. In Richpal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (2) DL 422 and Mohd. Hussain Vs. State (Delhi) 1989 (1) FAC 206, it was held as under:
"the contents of the CFSL report have to be treated as correct and in case defence wanted to challenge the said report, the defence should have prayed to the trial court for calling the expert with the record for the purposes of crossexamination CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 35 of 45 to enable the defence to prove that the contents of CFSL report are in any manner incorrect."
Use of colour.
78. It was further argued by the Ld. defence counsel that in view of the law laid down in Delhi Administration Vs. Amar Chand 2013 (1) FAC 136, upon a harmonious construction of Rule 23, 28 & 29 coupled with article A.18.06 Sunset yellow FCF though a synthetic food colour would not fall in the category of added colouring material which are prohibited in food grains. It was also argued that there is nothing on record to show that mere addition of Sunset Yellow FCF would make the Dal injurious to health more so when it is a matter of common knowledge that Dal is used only after washing. Reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs. Prem Kumar 1992 (1) FAC 60.
79. However, I differ with the contentions raised by the Ld. defence counsel in view of the law laid down in Prem Ballab and Anr. Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), Crl. Appeal No. 287 of 1971, decided on 15.09.1976. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with Rule 23, 28 & 29 has held as under:
"Rule 23 provided that the addition of a colouring matter to an article of food, except as specifically permitted by the rules shall be prohibited. The only artificial dyes which were permitted to be used in food, were those set out in Rule 28 and Rule 29 prohibited the use of permitted coal tar dyes in or upon any food other than those enumerated in that Rule. Linseed oil was admittedly not one of the articles of food enumerated in Rule 29 and hence even permitted coal tar dyes could not be added to linseed oil. It does not appear from the report of the Public Analyst as to what was the CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 36 of 45 artificial dye found mixed in the sample of linseed oil sent to him but we will assume in favour of the defence that it was a permitted coal tar dyes. Even so, by reason of Rules 23 and 29, it could not be added to linseed oil. In the circumstance, the linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye which was prohibited under the Rules.
When no colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food, what is prescribed in respect of the article is "nil colouring matter" and if the article contains any colouring matter, it would be "other than that prescribed in respect" of the article. Clause (j) of section 2(i) is not merely intended to cover a case where one type of colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food and the article contains another type of colouring matter but it also takes in a case where no colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food, or in other words, it is prohibited and yet the article contains a colouring matter............................................................................................................................... ....where no colouring matter is permitted to be used in the article of food, what is prescribed in respect of the article is that no colouring matter shall be used and if any colouring matter is present in the article in breach of that prescription, it will clearly involve violation of clause (j) of Section 2(i) ".
Injurious to health.
80. Regarding the defence plea that the addition of the colour did not make the sample injurious suffice is to say that the same is not tenable in view of the law laid down in Mani Bai Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 FAC 349. The Apex Court held as under:
" In a prosecution for sale of adulterated article of food it is not for the prosecution to show that the article was deleterious to health and if so how much harmful effect it would have upon the health of the person consuming it. All that is required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated.".CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 37 of 45
81. In Moses & Anr. Vs. State 1975 (2) FAC 271, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court held as under:
"The only defence, on the facts was that the adulteration was not prejudicial to health and would not injure anybody, but only added colour to the substance and made it attractive to the buyer. That, of course, was an untenable plea. It is well settled that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the adulterated substance need not be poisonous or injurious. Indeed, it may even be conducive to health.......The object of the Act is to see that the substance sold is not mixed with any other thing not permitted by law... But the offence is complete, because a substance not recognised by law has been used for mixing.".
82. Similar are the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Administration Vs. Manohar Lal, 2013 (1) FAC 186 and Delhi Administration Vs. Ashwani Kumar 2013 (1) FAC 284. In Ashwani Kumar's case it was held that the prosecution was not bound to prove that the added colour was injurious to health. Mere presence of the colour amounts to adulteration.
83. In Mohinder Paul Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (2) FAC 263, it was held that in Dal no coaltar dye colour or synthetic colour is permissible. The mere presence of the said colour would make it an offence.
84. In Jai Narain Vs. MCD, Crl. Appeal No. 172 of 1969 decided on 23.08.1972 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"Though there was no express evidence on the record that the use of the particular coal tar dye in the making of the patisa sold at this shop was injurious to health, it must be presumed or be so form the fact that it is not one of the permitted coal tar CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 38 of 45 dyes enumerated in rule 28.".
85. The Dal Masoor is not one of the food articles appearing in Rule 29 of PFA Rules 1955 wherein certain synthetic colours as mentioned in Rule 28 could be added hence the mere presence of the colour to Dal Masoor amounts to adulteration. Paper Chromatography Test.
86. It was also argued that the PA used 'paper chromatography test' which is not a reliable test to conclude the presence of any colouring matter. However I find no merit in the said contention of the Ld. defence counsel. Firstly as already discussed above once the report of Director, CFL is there on record, the report of the Public Analyst is rendered obsolete / annulled and cannot be looked into and reliance if any either for "conviction" or "acquittal" can be placed upon the report of Director, CFL only. Therefore, the modes of analysis / the method employed by the Public Analyst for giving the opinion looses significance as the report can not be seen / looked into. Nonetheless paper chromatography method is one of the prescribed method/test in DGHS Manual. In Delhi Administration Vs. Manohar Lal, 2013 (1) FAC 186 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the conviction of the vendor relying on the Public Analyst's report who had analysed the sample by using chromatography test. It was observed as under:
"18. Another ground for reversing the judgment of conviction taken by the learned A.S.J. ws the photochromatic test was not a reliable test to conclude presence of colouring matter. The learned ASJ relied on a a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bansi Lal V. State of Haryana, 1993 (1) FAC 117. The observations CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 39 of 45 about the authenticity of photochromatic test are only relevant where the Public Analyst is to determine the presence of a permitted or unpermitted coal tar dye. In Balmukand Singh V. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) FAC 104 : 2008 Crl. L.J., 1084, the learned single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that paper chromatography test is not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or unpermitted colouring matter has been used in the sampled food article. To the same effect, are the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in State V. Subhash Chand, 2012 (2) JCC 1052. In the instant case, the artificial colour permitted by Rule 28 were also prohibited by virtue of the standard laid down in Item No. A.18.06 and 18.06.09. If the Respondent was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, he had the option to get it analysed by Director CFL. The method of analysis or the days applied could not be challenged by the Respondent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh (Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board Saharanpur, 1973 FAC 404 and ), where it was held as under:
"The correct view of the law on the subject is as stated in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur V. Sri Ram wherein it is observed: "that the report of the public analyst under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 need not contain the mode or particulars of analysis nor the test applied but should contain the result of analysis namely, data from which it can be inferred whether the article of food was or was not adulterated as defined in S. 2(1) of the Act.".".
19. In this view of the matter, the learned ASJ fell into grave error in reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned M.M. Percentage of colour
87. It was further argued that in the report of the Director the percentage of colour has not been mentioned hence it cannot be concluded as to what was the exact CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 40 of 45 quantity of the colour detected to make it adulterated. Reliance was placed upon Khusi Ram Vs. State 1984 (2) FAC 256, and Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. Rajender Kumar 1988 (2) FAC 3. However, I do not agree with the above contentions of Ld. Defence counsel. On combined reading of Rule 23, 28 and 29 it becomes amply clear that no colour could be added to the Dal Masoor as Dal Masoor does not find mention in Rule 29 which deals with the food articles in which colours as mentioned in Rule 28 could be added. Therefore mere presence of colour whatever may be the traces amounts to adulteration. The percentage is of significance only when the colour is permitted to be added to a certain quantity/standard and it is in excess or less than that prescribed quantity/standard. But where no colour is permitted in food articles no question /argument can be raised that the PA or the Director did not mention the percentage of colour as the mere presence of colour amounts to adulteration. Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Prem Ballab and Anr. Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), Crl. Appeal No. 287 of 1971, decided on 15.09.1976 as discussed above. Furthermore In Ram Nath Vs. State 1981 (1) FAC, 204 it has been held that omission to specify the percentage of organic or inorganic extraneous matters is immaterial and this omission in the report cannot be regarded as a defect in it. In State of Gujarat Vs. Kutubuddin and ors 1981 (II), 264 it was held that on perusal of section 13 (2B) of the PFA Act it would be thus seen that the certificate has to be issued in a prescribed form and it has to specify only the result of the analysis.
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 41 of 45 Warranty.
88. Last pitched attempt was made by the Ld. defence counsel to wriggle out the accused from the clutches of law by arguing that the accused who was a mere vendor/retailer and he had purchased the sample commodity from the market and hence sold the same in the same condition. It was argued that as it was admitted by the Food Inspector and other prosecution witnesses that the accused was a merely a retailer and not the manufacturer the accused cannot be convicted in view of section 19 of the Act.
89. However the said plea of the Ld. defence counsel is not sustainable. In order to seek the benefit of Section 19(2) r/w Section 14 of the Act, the vendor was obliged to prove that he had purchased the article of food in question from a manufacturer / distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and that the article of food so purchased was properly stored while it was in his possession and he sold it in the same state as it was purchased by him. Proviso of Section 14 creates a fiction that a bill, cash memo or invoice given by distributor or dealer to the vendor shall be deemed to be a warranty. Hence, even if the vendor is unable to produce a warranty in Form VIA, the bill or cash memo given to him by the manufacturer or distributor will be enough to satisfy the requirements of sub section (2) of Section 19 of the Act. Reliance may be placed upon AIR 1960 SC 12 and AIR 1984 SC 192.
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 42 of 45
90. In Pothuri Ananda Venkta Shubha Rao Gupta Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1991 FAC 79, it was held that the burden is on the accused to produce the warranty and prove that he purchased the food article under warranty from a particular person. Mere filing of the photocopy of the bill / the warranty without filing the original in the court will not be of any help of the accused / the vendor. Further reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Raja Das G. Pemnani Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1975 SC 189, A. Ghosh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 FAJ 229, Sham Sunder Maheshwari Vs. State of Assam 2006 (1) FAC 14, Apurba Poddar Vs. State of Assam 2006 (1) FAC 22 and State of Gujarat Vs. M/s Ashok Kumar Sheetal Das Firm 2006 (1) FAC 1.
91. In R.K. Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors 1992 (2) FAC 62, it was held that the bare word of the vendor in the absence of the bill, cash memo or invoice was not sufficient to grant him the benefit of Section 19(2). Similarly in Bhola Ram Vs. State of Punjab 1985 (1) FAC 270, it was held that the bare word of the vendor in the absence of bill, cash memo or invoice was not sufficient to justify an order of summoning of the manufacturer. It was observed in para 3 as under:
"The bare word of the vendor in that regard would not be enough. There had to be something more to it. On the file, there is no bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the article of food. Thus, no occasion for the present has arisen to employ even the provisions of Section 20A of the Act in impleading the petitioner as an accused in the case.".
92. In P. Unnikrishnan Vs. Food Inspector, Palaghat Municipality, CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 43 of 45 Kerla, 1996 (2) FAC 25, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the article should be sold in the same condition by the vendor as it was purchased by him. It was held in para 6 as under:
"..........................admittedly the article was in sealed tins which were not tempered, with a label to the effect that it was a product of M/s Tajus Productions. The accused sold it in the same manner and condition in which it was purchased by him."
93. Hence, not only the accused has to prove that he has purchased the article from a particular manufacturer / distributor but further that the article was sold by him in the same manner / state / condition as it was purchased by him. Unless there is material to show that he was selling in the same state in which it was purchased, the petitioner can not get benefit of Section 19(2) of the Act. Reliance may be placed upon law laid down in H.A. Rasheed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 (1) FAC 78, Inderjit Vs. State of Haryana FAJ 370, Swapan Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar 1988 CrLJ 60, 1981 (1) FAC 275, and Apurba Poddar Vs. State of Assam 2006 (1) FAC 22.
94. In the case at hand, the accused did not place any bill/receipt/invoice etc. on record. He could not prove even remotely that he had purchased the food article in question from certain manufacturer and sold it in the same condition as it was purchased by him. His bare words in the absence of any bill/receipt/invoice etc. does not absolve him from his liability under the PFA Act.
CC No. 283/03 DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 44 of 45
95. In view of my above discussion, as colour Sunset Yellow FCF was found by the Director in the sample of Dal masoor so analysed which is not permitted under / is in violation of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 and 29 of PFA Rules 1955 as Dal masoor is not a food article falling under Rule 29 wherein the food articles in which synthetic colours as per Rules 28 are permitted are listed, the accused stands convicted under Section 2 (ia) (a), (j) & (m) of PFA Act 1954 r/w Rule 23, 28 and 29 of PFA Rules 1955.
96. Let the accused be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (Gaurav Rao)
on 25th February, 2014 ACMMII/ New Delhi
CC No. 283/03
DA Vs. Kishore Jain Page 45 of 45