Delhi District Court
Sh. Hariom Gulati vs State on 18 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/FSAT, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
FSAT No. 13/18 (CNR No. DLND010119072018)
1. Sh. Hariom Gulati
M/s Gujarat Coop. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.
24/1, DBlock, Institutional Area
Janakpuri, New Delhi110058
(Nominee of Manufacturing Company)
2. M/s Gujarat Coop. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.
24/1, DBlock, Institutional Area
Janakpuri, New Delhi110058
Through Sh. Pranav Singla
Authorized Representative (Marketer Company)
..... Appellants
Versus
State, through Sh. Rajendra Kumar Bhaskar
Food Safety Officer
Department of Food Safety
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place
New Delhi110001.
..... Respondent
APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
04.09.2018 OF LD. ADJUDICATING OFFICER /
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
(NORTH EAST), DELHI.
Date of filing of appeal : 05.10.2018
Date of arguments : 18.112019
Date of judgment : 18.11.2019
FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 1 of 16
J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present appeal, challenging the order dated 04.09.2018 ("the impugned order" in short) of Ld. Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate (North East), Nand Nagri, Delhi ("ADM" in short), whereby he imposed penalty of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees three lacs only) upon the appellant No.1 and Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees four lacs only) upon appellant No.2 under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ("FSS Act" in short) and Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lac only) each under Section 54 of FSS Act upon the appellants, for selling substandard milk in contravention to Section 26(1) & 26(2)(ii) of FSS Act read with Section 3(1)(zx) of FSS Act, 2006, Regulation 1.2.6 read with Regulation No. 2.1.1:1 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard & Food Additives), Regulations, 2011 {FSS(FPS & FA)} Regulations in short) and Section 3(1)(i) read with Regulation 2.1.(10) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011.
2. Briefly stating, the facts as per the appeal are that on 02.02.2016 a sample of "Amul Pasteurized Full Cream Milk" was lifted by the Food Safety Officer (in short FSO) from Sh. Jony Kumar, FBOcum Driver of vehicle No. HR745046 for its analysis under the provisions of FSS Act/Regulations. On analysis by the Food Analyst, Delhi, the said sample was declared to be substandard vide report dt.05.02.2016 as the milk solid not fat (SNF) was found to be 8.4% against the minimum prescribed standard of 9.0%. However, in the said report, Milk Fat was found to be 6.4% against the minimum prescribed of 6.0%. After receiving the said FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 2 of 16 report of Food Analyst, Delhi, the manufacturer / packer through its nominee filed an appeal before the concerned Designated Officer (DO). The said appeal was allowed and one counterpart of the sampled commodity was forwarded to Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore (RFL) for reanalysis. The RFL vide its report dt. 04.05.2016 declared the sample to be substandard as defined under Section 3(1)(zx) of FSS Act, 2006 with the opinion that sample does not conform to the standards laid down for full cream milk under the provisions of FSS (FPS & FA), Regulation, 2011. It was further opined vide the said report that the "Test for Cane sugar is positive". The milk solid not fat was found to be 9.78% against the minimum prescribed limit of 9.0% by the RFL, Mysore and milk fat % by weight was found to be 5.5% against the minimum prescribed limit of 6.0%. Consequently, a complaint was filed against seven respondentstherein including the appellantsherein by the FSO before the Adjudicating Officer. After pleadings and enquiry, the Ld. ADM passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 imposing a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/ upon the appellant No.1 and Rs.5,00,000/ upon appellant No.2.
3. The appellants have challenged the impugned order inter alia on the grounds among others that the Ld. ADM has failed to appreciate the fact that the Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore tested the FAT contents by "Gerber method (IS.1224, 1977)". The Gerber Method adopted by Referral Food Laboratory is not a reliable method for testing milk fat in milk as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation of the City, Nagpur vs. Neetam Manikrao Kature & Others 1998 SCC (Crl.) 564 (SC) and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case titled G.K. Upadhyay Vs. FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 3 of 16 Kanubhai Raimalbhai Rabri 2009 (1) FAC 499 (Gujarat). The report of Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore could not have been relied upon as appellate laboratory adopted an erroneous method for testing the sampled commodity in case of fat and SNF. The report of RFL, Mysore could not have been relied upon by the Ld. ADM while passing the impugned order as it was based upon "Gerber Method". Both the aforesaid reports were contradictory to each other, as in the Food Analyst report dt. 05.02.2016, the Milk Fat was found to be 6.4% and SNF was found to be 8.4% as against Referral Laboratory report dt. 04.05.2016 wherein milk fat contents was found to be 5.5% and SNF was found to be 9.78% and further the cane sugar was found to be positive, which was found to be absent in analysis report of Food Analyst, Delhi. The Ld. ADM failed to appreciate that the sampling procedure adopted by the FSO was faulty and the counterparts so prepared by the respondent / FSO were also not representative in nature, which resulted in unfair analysis and complete variance/divergence in both the said reports. The Ld. ADM acted against the principle of natural justice while passing the impugned order as the Ld. ADM without any cogent reasoning dismissed the application for crossexamination of concerned FSO and Food Analyst, Delhi, holding that he was of the opinion that crossexamination will not serve any purpose for just disposal of the case / complaint. The appellantsherein were neither the manufacturer nor the packer of the sampled commodity which was manufactured and packed by M/s Goga Food Ltd. Khekra, UP. The appellants were entitled to benefit of defence of due diligence under Section 80(B)(2)(a)(b)&(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The appellantsherein were also entitled to benefit of guarantee as FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 4 of 16 per provision of Section 26(4) of the Act as the sampled commodity was supplied vide purchase order / delivery challan / bill / invoice No. 0025236874 dt.01.02.2016 of the appellants by manufacturer and packer i.e. M/s Goga Foods Ltd., Khekra (respondent No.5 in the complaint). No independent public witness was associated by the FSO during the sampling proceedings.
4. The Ld. Chief PP for the State has not filed reply to the appeal, however, he has opposed the appeal.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the written synopsis & additional synopsis filed on behalf of the appellants and also the record carefully.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants herein was neither the manufacturer nor packer of the sampled commodity. There was variation in the two Expert Reports with regard to the samples sent that too beyond the acceptable range which renders the samples unrepresentative and as such the appellants may be given the benefit of doubt. The Gerber Method adopted in this case by RFL is not reliable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikrao Kature & Ors. 1988 SCC (Crl) 564 and the said judgment still holds good being not overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel for the appellantsherein further argued that FSO while lifting the sample followed the faulty procedure and there is no evidence that container / utensils were washed / cleaned at the spot before sampling on the spot. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that the FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 5 of 16 word "final" in the Rule 2.4.6 of FSS Act does not mean or imply that the report of RFL supersede or become conclusive in respect of its contents. Ld. ADM did not consider the application of appellants for crossexamination of witnesses including the Food Analyst before passing the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Corporation of the City of Nagpur (supra); G.K. Upadhyay (supra); Food Inspector/Food Safety Officer Vs. Santosh Sharma 2014(1) FAC 296 (Delhi); State Vs. Abdul Jameel 2014(2) FAC 166 (Delhi); State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gulzari Lal & Ors 2014(1) FAC 141 (HP); State of Gujarat Vs. Om Prakash Dhanshriram Pandit 2015(1) FAC 313 (Gujarat); M/s Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2016 (1) FAC 416 (UK) and Smt. A. Pavani versus State of A.P. 2006 (2) fac 37 (Andhra Pradesh).
7. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor argued that the standards which have been laid down by the legislature are to be followed, which was not so in the case of the appellants herein. The parameters and standards were not followed by the appellants for selling the milk. The substandard milk is to be treated as an adulterated article, even if it has not caused injuries to health. The appellants did not comply with the standards of rules / regulations of Food Safety and Standard Act. The Ld. Chief PP also argued that the Gerber Method used for analysing in the food article i.e. Milk Fat is a DGHS manual method which was printed in the year 1975. It was also argued that the said method is a part of Indian Standard IS12241958 adopted by ISI and further reaffirmed by ISI in the year 1977 onwards. It was further argued that DGHS Manual 2005 at serial No. 1.7.1 and Indian Standard IS:124(Part)(I)1977 FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 6 of 16 also shows that the Gerber Method is certified method for determination of fat in milk. FSSAI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in its latest draft manual of method analyses of foods - milk and milk products, published in 2012 has also included the Gerber Method for determination of fat content in milk. As such, the Government labs including food safety lab was following the Gerber Method. Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Ld.ADM on the basis of the reports and evidence on record. The Ld. Chief PP for the State, in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar versus The State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2019 decided on 04.10.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
8. Perusal of record reveals that the appellants have challenged the impugned order mainly on the grounds that the appellants were neither the manufacturer nor packer of the sampled commodity. There was variations in both the aforesaid reports and that no penalty could have been imposed on the appellants in view of contradictory reports. The another ground for challenging the impugned order is that proper procedure as per law was not followed or that the "Gerber Method", which was adopted by the RFL in analyzing the sample is not reliable method as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur (Supra). It is a matter of record that initially, when one counterpart of the sample was sent to Food Analyst for analysis, the appellants did not request for sending the sample to NABL Accredited Laboratory. The Food Analyst vide his report dated 05.02.2016, opined the sample as substandard because milk solids not fat is less than the prescribed minimum limits of 9.0%. On FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 7 of 16 receipt of the Food Analyst's report from the Designated Officer, the appellants requested for sending the sample to Referral Food Laboratory. The Director of Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore vide his report dated 04.05.2016 opined that milk solids not fat % as 5.5% i.e., below the prescribed standard as per Regulation No.2.1.1 and that the Test for cane sugar was found positive. It further found the food sample to be sub standard, as defined under Section 3(1)(zx) FSS Act as it did not conform to the standards laid down for Toned Cream Milk under the provisions of FSS(FPS & FA) Regulations.
9. The appellants have contended that the appellants should not have been imposed penalty in view of variations in the reports of Food Analyst and Referral Food Laboratory. On the other hand, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor stated that the Report of Referral Food Laboratory is final and conclusive. There is no occasion for any comparison between the two reports and plea of variations in findings in two reports cannot be considered.
10. Rule 2.4.6 of FSSR reads as under:
"2.4.6 Appeal to the Designated Officer
1. When an appeal as provided under subsection (4) of section 46 is preferred to the Designated Officer by the Food Business Operator against the report of the Food Analyst, the Designated Officer, shall if he so decides, within thirty days from the receipt of such appeal after considering the material placed before him and after giving an opportunity to Food Business Operator to be heard shall forward one part of the sample to the referral lab.Such appeal shall be in Form VIII which shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the analysis report from the Designated Officer.
FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 8 of 16 Report of the referral laboratory shall be final in this regard.
2..... "
11. In the present case, the appellants after receiving the said report of the Food Analyst, Delhi, preferred an appeal before the Designated Officer, North East, Delhi and the same was allowed. The sample commodity was then sent to the Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore for reanalysis. The report of RFL received, therefore, in view of the provision as contained in Rule 2.4.6(1) FSSR, the above Certificate/report of Referral Food Laboratory shall be final and if it is left open then there would be no end for declaring such reports final which is based on the scientific / technical method by the Government labs, which is treated as the authentic method for testing the food quality.
12. Proviso to Section 13 (5) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("PFA Act" in short) i.e. the old Act also contained the similar provision laying down that Certificate of Director, Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Section 13(3) of the said Act also clarified that the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. In this context, the reliance can be had upon the judgment reported in the case of Subhash Chander v. State (Delhi Administration) Delhi, 1983 (4) DRJ 100, where it was observed that:
7. It has repeatedly been held by the supreme court that the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the public analyst and is to be treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. The Director is FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 9 of 16 a greater expert and therefore the statute says that his certificate shall be accepted by the court as conclusive evidence. For all purposes the report of the public analyst is replaced by the certificate of the Director.....Superseded 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 purpose it is superseded."
13. During arguments, the Ld. Chief PP for the State argued that the Gerber Method used for analysing in the food article i.e. Milk Fat is a DGHS manual method which was printed in the year 1975 and it was also clarified that the method is a part of Indian Standard IS12241958 adopted by ISI and further reaffirmed by ISI in the year 1977 onwards. It was also argued that DGHS Manual 2005 at serial No. 1.7.1 and Indian Standard IS:124(Part)(I)1977 also shows that the Gerber Method is certified method for determination of fat in milk. FSSAI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in its latest draft manual of method analyses of foods - milk and milk products, published in 2012 has also included the Gerber Method for determination of fat content in milk. As such, the Government labs including food safety lab was following the Gerber Method. It was found by the Ld. ADM on the basis of the report, relevant provisions of the FSS Act and Regulations that the sample was subsandard and violated the aforesaid provisions of the FSS Act and Regulations.
14. In the case of Keshubhai Ranbhai Tukadiya (supra), the FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 10 of 16 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat referred the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur (supra) in which it was held that Gerber's method of analysis of the quality of food substance was not of assured quality and accuracy and such method was not certified by the Indian Standard Institute. However, in the case of Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra), relied upon by the Ld. Chief PP for the State / respondent, it was observed and held by the Hon'ble Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on 30.10.1995 a sample of milk was collected from the appellant by the Food Inspector. The same was sent to the Public Analyst who received the same on 02.11.1995. The sample was analyzed and Milk Fat (MF for short) was found to be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2019.10.04 4.6% and Milk Solid NonFat (MSNF for short) was 7.7%, against 15:35:09 IST Reason: the prescribed standard of 8.5%. The appellant was prosecuted after obtaining consent of the Chief Medical Officer, and was convicted by trial court, which conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. Ld. counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid case, raised number of issues. The first was that there was delay in analysing the sample and, therefore, marginal shortfall in MSNF should be overlooked, since it would have caused by the delay in testing the sample. The said contention was not accepted because there was no material on record to support this assertion. The appellant did not even deem it fit to summon the Public Analyst for crossexamination for this purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in similar circumstances where the delay in testing the samples was of 44 days, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 11 of 16 considered in Shambhu Dayal vs. State of U.P. 1 held that since the sample had been preserved by using formalin, as in the present case, the accused cannot get any benefit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or border line variations of the standard from the operation of the Act. In such circumstances to condone such variations on the ground that they are negligible is virtually to alter the standard itself fixed under the Act. The standards of qualities of the articles have been fixed by the Government under the provisions of the Act after due deliberation and after consulting a committee of competent men. It is for them to give due allowance for probable errors before fixing a standard. They may have done it also. There is no reason to assume otherwise. Therefore, the conclusion is that for an article of food when a standard has been fixed under the Act it has to be observed in every detail. Therefore, the said criminal appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the judgment in the case of Corporation of City of Nagpur (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
15. It is evident as discussed above that the report of the Director, Referal Food Laboratory, Mysore is considered a greater expert report, the Certificate issued by him is also considered as final / concuslive. The Ld. ADM, considered the contentions of the appellants and also the Gerber Method as well as the judgment in the case of Corporation of City Nagpur (supra) and thereafter it was found by him on the basis of the report, relevant provisions of the FSS Act and Regulations that the sample was subsandard and violated the aforesaid provisions of the FSS Act and Regulations.
FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 12 of 16
16. Appellants have contended that it was the manufacture or the packer i.e. M/s Goga Food Limited, Khekra, UP, who was liable for the said violation. It is pleaded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of due diligence under Section 80(B) FSS Act. But Ld.ADM failed to appreciate the same. On the other hand, Ld. Chief PP submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any benefit of Section 80(B) FSS Act as the appellants were equally duty bound to ensure that the sample food article complied with the provisions of law.
17. Let us discuss Section 80(B)(2) of FSS Act, under which the benefit of defence is sought, which is as under :
"80. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act.
(A)...
(B) Defence of due diligence (1)...
(2) Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of clause (1), a person satisfies those requirements if it is proved:
(a) that the commission of the offence was due to --
(i) an act or default of another person; or
(ii) reliance on information supplied by another person; and
(b) (i) the person carried out all such checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the circumstances; or
(ii) it was reasonable in all the circumstances to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied such food to the person; and
(c) that the person did not import the food into the jurisdiction from another country; and
(d) in the case of an offence involving the sale of food, that--
(i) the person sold the food in the same condition as and when the person purchased it, or
(ii) the person sold the food in a different condition to that in which the person purchased it, but that the difference did not result in any contravention of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, and
(e) that the person did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time of commission of the alleged offence that the person's act or omission would constitute an offence under the relevant section.
FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 13 of 16
18. From the plain reading of Section 80(B)(2) FSS Act, it is evident that for claiming benefit under the said provision, besides selling the food in the same condition in which it was purchased it has to be proved by the person that he/it carried out checks of the food concerned, as were reasonable in all the circumstances. In the instant case, as per the appellant No.1 himself, the sample food article was stored by him as a nominee of the manufacturing company and appellant No.2(marketer company) for marketing/supplying to customers, as such, the appellants have failed to exercise due diligence before selling the food article. Documents placed on records reveals that the appellants have not discharged efficiently the corporate social responsibility of providing wholesome and full standard consumable items, which may have an adverse impact on the health of the forthcoming generation specially the milk fed babies who are exclusively fed milk only. Therefore, storing a substandard food article for human consumption is against the provisions/rules/ regulations as discussed above. Nothing has been brought on record to prove against the sample purchased by the FSO and reports of the Analyst and RFL by the appellants except objections or the allegations raised / made against the FSO and the said reports before the Ld. ADM. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the said reports, the appellants have violated the provisions/rules/regulations as discussed above. Moreover, the appellants have also failed to exercise and demonstrate due diligence before selling the food article, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 80(B)(2) of FSS Act.
19. Section 26 of the FSS Act 2006 provides responsibilities of the Food Business Operator. Sub clause (2)(ii) of Section 26 the said Act FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 14 of 16 provides that no Food Business Operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacturer, store, sell or distribute any article of food which is misbranded or substandard or contains extraneous matter. Section 26 of the FSS Act, 2006, seeks to provide for the responsibilities of the food business operator to ensure that the articles of food satisfy the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder at all stages of production, processing, import, distribution and sale within the businesses under his control. Subclause (2) provides that no food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacturer, store, sell or distribute any article of food which is misbranded or substandard or contains extraneous matter or which is for the time being prohibited by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the State Government in the interest of public health.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, arguments on behalf of the parties and the material available on reocrd as well as the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants as well as the Ld. Chief PP for the State, I am of the considered opinion that the sample food article i.e. "Pasteurized Full Cream Milk" did not conform to the specified standard as laid down in Regulation 1.2.6 read with Regulation 2.1.1:1 FSS (FPS & FA) Regulations. Nonconforming to the specified standard rendered the sample i.e. Pasteurized Full Cream Milk as substandard in terms of Section 3(1)(zx) of the FSS Act. The parameters and standards laid down by the legislatures were not followed by the appellants for selling the milk. The substandard milk is to be treated as an adulterated article, even if it has not caused injuries to health. Having considered the fact that the appellants did not comply with the standards and parameters / rules / FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 15 of 16 regulations and also the report of RFL, which is a final report and also the fact that the appellants filed the application dt.12.06.2017 for cross examination of Food Analyst and FSO after the receipt of report of RFL, therefore, the Ld. ADM did not deem it fit to allow the appellants' request to crossexamine the concerned FSO and Food Analyst. The Gerber Method is certified method for determination of fat in milk as per DGHS Manual 2005 and Indian Standard as discussed above. Moreover, FSSAI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in its latest draft manual of method analyses of foods - milk and milk products, published in 2012 has also included the Gerber Method for determination of fat content in milk. Section 51 and 54 of FSS Act prescribe a maximum penalty of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs only) and maximum Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One lac only) respectively. Accordingly, he imposed the total penalty of Rs.4.0 lacs upon the appellant No.1 and total penalty of Rs.05.00 lacs upon appellant No.2. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the appellants have failed to demonstrate any justified reason to interfere with the impugned order dt.04.09.2018 of the Ld. ADM. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Ld. ADM. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
YASHWANT Digitally signed by
YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2019.11.18 17:58:39
+0530
Announced in open Court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
on 18th day of November 2019 District & Sessions Judge/FSAT
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
FSAT No. 13/18 Sh. Hariom Gulati & Anr. vs. State through, FSO Page No. 16 of 16