Delhi District Court
Da vs . Puran Chand Chaddha Page 1 Of 15 on 13 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 147/07
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
Sh. Puran Chand Chaddha
S/o Late Shri Chunnilal Chaddha.
M/s Chaddha Kirana Store,
Shop No. 558/2,
Shraddha Nand Market, Delhi6.
R/o BG27, Poorvi Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
........ VendorcumProprietor
CC No. 147/07
DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 1 of 15
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 147/07
Date of the commission of the offence : 06.07.2007
Date of filing of the complaint : 20.11.2007
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri O.P.S. Ahlawat, F.I.
Offence complained of or proved : Violation of provisions of Section
2(ia) (a) (b) (e) (f) & (I) of PFA
Act 1954; punishable U/s 16(1A)
r/w section 7 of PFA Act 1954.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted.
Arguments heard on : 27.07.2013
Judgment announced on : 13.08.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 20.11.2007 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat against the accused Sh. Puran Chand Chaddha. It is stated in the complaint that on 06.07.2007 at about 6:30 PM, FI Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat purchased a sample of Safed Zeera Whole, a food article for analysis from Sh. Puran Chand Chaddha, S/o Late Sh. Chunnilal Chaddha from the premises of M/s Chaddha Kirana Store, Shop No. 558/2, Shraddha Nand Market, Delhi06, where the said CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 2 of 15 food article was found for sale for human consumption and accused Puran Chand Chaddha was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat purchased approximately 600 gms of Safed Zeera Whole taken from an open gunny bag, bearing no label or declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the Safed Zeera Whole with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating the same in the Safed Zeera Whole several times under the supervision and direction of Sh. R.K. Sharma, SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by Food Inspector by putting it in three clean and dry bottles and each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of accused Puran Chand Chaddha were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the bottles containing the sample. Notice was given to and price of sample was also paid to him vide Vendor's Receipt dated 06.07.2007. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Puran Chand Chaddha and the other witness namely Sh. J.P. Bhardwaj, FA. It is stated that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. J.P. Bhardwaj, FA joined as witness in sample proceedings. CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 3 of 15
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA code No. 42/LHA/18915 in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and opined that "the sample is adulterated because it contains three pieces of rodent excreta in whole sample".
3. It is further stated that accused Sh. Puran Chand Chaddha S/o Late Sh. Chunnilal Chaddha was found VendorcumProprietor of M/s Chaddha Kirana Store, Shop No. 558/2, Shraddha Nand Market,k Delhi6 at the time of sampling and as such he was responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of said shop. Thereafter, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) (e) (f) & (I) of PFA Act 1954 punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act.
4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 20.11.2007. He appeared and moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory (CFL). The said application was allowed and consequently second counterpart of the sample was sent to CFL, Pune for analysis. The Director, CFL on CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 4 of 15 analysing the second counterpart of the sample in question opined vide his Certificate dated 15.03.2008 that "the sample contains broken fruits more than 5.0%, non volatile ether extract less than 15.0% & hence does not conform to the standards of Cumin (Safed Jeera) whole as per PFA Rules 1955 ".
5. Notice for violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) (e) (f) & (I) of PFA Act 1954, punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed upon the accused vide order dated 06.05.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined three witnesses namely Sh. R.K. Sharma, the then SDM / LHA as PW1, Shri O.P.S. Ahlawat, Food Inspector as PW2 and Sh. J.P. Bhardwaj, Field Assistant as PW3 and PE was closed vide order dated 11.02.2013.
7. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 04.05.2013 wherein accused claimed himself to be innocent and opted not to lead DE. Hence, the DE was closed on the same day.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that a representative sample was not taken by the FI and the sample was not properly CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 5 of 15 homogenized therefore, there are variations in the report of Public Analyst (PA) and Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for which the accused can not be faulted with and accused is entitled to be acquitted. He has placed reliance on case laws titled as State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398 and State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) FAC 177.
10. On the other hand, the Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that the sample commodity was properly homogenized with the help of clean and dry jhaba and after thorough mixing the sample commodity, three representative counterparts were prepared and therefore, the contention of the accused that a representative sample was not taken is baseless. He contended that as per report of Director, CFL, the sample does not conform to the standards of Chillies Powder as per PFA Rules and the report of Director, CFL being conclusive and supersedes the report of Public Analyst, therefore the accused cannot be given benefit of variations in the reports of PA and CFL. He has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.
11. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed more or less as per the averments made in the complaint.
12. PW2 Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat who conducted the sample proceedings CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 6 of 15 has deposed in his examinationinchief that on 06.07.2007, he along with FA Sh. J.P. Bhardwaj under the supervisions and directions of SDM/LHA Sh. R.K. Sharma visited the premises of M/s Chadha Kiryana Store, Shop No. 558/2, Shardhanand Market, Delhi where accused Puran Chand was found conducting the business of food articles stored there for sale for human consumption including Safed Jeera Whole. He has further deposed that he purchased 600 gms of Safed Jeera Whole taken from an open gunny bag bearing no label or declaration for analysis on payment of Rs. 90/ vide vendor's receipt Ex. PW 1/A. He further deposed that sample was properly mixed with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating it in all possible directions and thereafter he divided the sample commodity into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and dry glass bottles and all the three sample bottles were separately packed, marked, fastened and sealed accordingly to PFA Act and Rules.
13. PW2 has further deposed that notice in Form VI was prepared at the spot vide Ex. PW 1/B and a copy of the same was given to accused and panchnama was also prepared at the spot which is Ex. PW 1/C. He has further deposed that all the documents Ex. PW 1/A to Ex. PW 1/C prepared on the spot were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi who after understanding the same signed these documents. He has further deposed CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 7 of 15 that one counter part of the sample alongwith one copy of memo in Form VII in intact & sealed condition was sent to the PA on 09.07.2007 vide receipt Ex. PW1/E and remaining two counterparts of the sample in a separate sealed packet were deposited in intact condition with the LHA on 09.07.2007 vide receipt Ex. PW1/D. He has further deposed that PA report was received, which is Ex. PW1/G according to which the sample was found adulterated because it was containing three pieces of rodent excreta in whole sample. He has proved the letter Ex. PW 2/A which was sent to STO seeking constitution of the firm. He has further deposed that during investigation the accused also furnished his statement which is Ex . PW 2/B disclosing thereby the owner of the shop and also gave photocopies of Sales Tax Tin No. He has further deposed that during investigation, the accused was found VendorcumProprietor. He has proved the sanction as Ex. PW 1/G, the complaint as Ex. PW 1/H, intimation letter as Ex. PW 2/C and postal registration receipts as Ex. PW 2/D.
14. Rest of both the witnesses i.e. SDM / LHA Shri R.K. Sharma and FA Shri J.P. Bhardwaj have corroborated the version of PW2 in their examination in chief.
15. In the crossexamination of PW1 a suggestion was put that a representative sample was not taken to which the witness denied. CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 8 of 15
16. PW2 in his crossexamination has admitted that during sample proceedings no rodent excreta was observed with naked eyes.
17. In the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. has admitted that on 06.07.2007 at about 6:30 PM, FI Shri O.P.S. Ahlawat alongwith FA Shri J.P. Bhardwaj, under the supervision and directions of SDM / LHA Shri R.K. Sharma had visited his premises where he was found present conducting business of various food articles including Safed Jeera Whole. He has taken a plea that the report of PA and Director CFL are defective because the sample was not representative one.
18. From the aforesaid crossexamination of PWs and the statement of the accused, the defence of the accused seems to be that the sample of the Safed Jeera Whole was not homogenized properly and that a representative sample was not taken and therefore, there is huge variations in both the reports of experts.
19. In the present case it is not in dispute that on 06.07.2007 at about 6:30 PM, accused Puran Chand Chaddha was found conducting the business of Safed Jeera Whole at the aforesaid premises and further that FI O.P.S. Ahlawat had lifted a sample of Safed Jeera Whole for analysis from him. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst (PA) for analysis and the Public Analyst (PA) vide his report dated 24.07.2007 found that sample CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 9 of 15 adulterated.
20. The present prosecution has been launched against the accused on the basis of said PA's report dated 24.07.2007. The report of PA has been exhibited and proved as Ex. PW 1/F. The accused exercised his right u/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act and consequently second counterpart of the sample selected by the accused was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Pune for analyzing the sample and the report thereof in the form of Certificate of the Director, CFL, Pune dated 15.03.2008 was received. Perusal of same shows that sample did not conform to the standards of Cumin (Safed Jeera) Whole as per PFA Rules 1955.
21. Before appreciating the material on record here it would be appropriate to have a glance on the results of both the experts which are as under: Report of Public Analyst S. No. Quality Characteristic Name of method of Test Result Prescribed Standards as per:
used (a) Item Aof appenix "B"
(b) As per label declaration
for proprietary foods
(c) As per Provisions of the
Act and Rules, for both
above.
1. Moisture () DGHS Manual 6.08% Not more than 10.0 per cent by
weight
CC No. 147/07
DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 10 of 15
2. Extraneous () Physical Examination 0.07% Not more than 3.0 per cent by
weight
3. Broken Fruits (Damaged DGHS Manual Nil Not more than 5.0 per cent by
Shriveled discoloured weight
and immature seed)()
4. Proportion of Edible Physical Examination Nil Absent
seeds other than cumin
seeds()
5. Insect damaged matter() Physical Examination Nil Not more than 1.0 per cent by
weight
6. Total Ash on dry basis () DGHS Manual 6.79% Not more than 9.5 per cent by
weight
7. Non volatile ether extract DGHS Manual 18.22% Not less than 15.0 per cent by
on dry basis() weight
8. Volatile oil content on DGHS Manual 1.65% Not less than 1.5 per cent by
dry basis () v/w
9. Salmonella() DGHS Manual Not Absent in 25 g
required
10. Ash Insoluble in dilute DGHS Manual 0.53% Not more than 3.0 per cent by
HCL on dry basis () weight
Opinion: The sample is Adulterated because it contains three pieces of rodent excreta in whole
sample
Report of Central Food Laboratory
S. No. Quality Characteristic Name of method of Test Result Prescribed Standards as per:
used (a) Item Aof Appendix "B"
(b) As per label declaration
for proprietary foods
C As per Provisions of the
Act and Rules, for both
above. As per item
1. Extraneous matter D.G.H.S 1.5% Not more than 3.0% by wt.
CC No. 147/07
DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 11 of 15
2. Broken fruits do 6.0% Not more than 5.0% by wt.
(Damaged, shriveled
discoloured & immature
seeds.)
3. Moisture do 8.2% Not more than 10.0% by wt.
4. Total ash on dry basis. do 7.95% Not more than 9.5% by wt
5. Ash insoluble in dil Hcl do 1.30% Not more than 3.0% by wt.
on dry basis.
6. Nonvolatile ether extract do 12.2% Not less than 15.0% by wt.
on dry basis
7. Volatile oil contents on do 1.63% Not less than 1.5% v/w
dry basis.
8. Salmonella do Absent in 25 gms.
9. Edible seeds other than do Nil Shall be absent.
cumin seeds
10. Insect damaged matter do 0.4% Not more than 1.0% by wt.
Opinion: I am of the opinion that, the above, sample contains broken fruits more than 5.0%, non volatile ether extract less than 15.0% & hence, does not conform to the standards of Cumin (Safed Jeera) Whole as per P.F.A. Rule 1955
22. Perusal of PA's Report would reveal that as per his opinion, the sample was adulterated because it was containing three pieces of rodent excreta even otherwise the sample was conforming to standards. However, as per the opinion of Director CFL, the sample did not conform to standards because it was containing broken fruits more than 5.0% and nonvolatile ether extract less than 15.0%. Thus, the opinion of both the experts are at two different directions meaning thereby that both the experts have given totally different opinion after analyzing the different counterparts of the CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 12 of 15 same sample. Furthermore, perusal of both the reports of experts would also reveal that there are not only huge variations but there are contradictions as well in the results thereof. As per PA's opinion, Moisture, Extraneous matter, Total Ash on dry basis, Non volatile ether extract on dry basis, volatile oil content on dry basis and Ash insoluble in dilute HCL on dry basis are to the tune of 6.08%, 0.07%, 6.79%, 18.22%, 1.65% and 0.53% respectively whereas as per the opinion of Director CFL Moisture is 8.2%, Extraneous matter is 1.5%, Total Ash on dry basis is 7.95%, Nonvolatile ether extract on dry basis is 12.2%, volatile oil contents on dry basis is 1.63% and Ash insoluble in dil Hcl on dry basis is 1.30%. Furthermore, In PA's Report Broken Fruits (Damaged Shriveled discoloured and immature seed) and Insect damaged matter are Nil whereas as per report of Director CFL the same are 6.0% and 0.4% respectively. As such, there are contradictions and variations in the results of Public Analyst and Director, Central Food Laboratory reports and these variations appears to be on higher side and it goes to show that the sample was not properly mixed / homogenized and hence it cannot be said to be representative sample.
23. In State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398 after relying upon various judgments titled as Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 13 of 15 FAC 219 and State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) FAC 177 has held that, "since in the present case, variation in public analyst and CFL certificates is more than .3%, it would clearly imply that samples in the present case were not representative.". In Kanshi Nath Vs. State (Supra) even while certain other contentions of the accused were rejected, the contention concerning the samples sent to the two test labs not being representative was accepted and the accused were acquitted. In this judgment after referring to the judgment of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273 has observed that, " Therefore, on the facts of the present case, It can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be sustained". Similarly in State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. (Supra) has been observed that, " While both reports have concurred in the conclusion that the sample was adulterated, the variation in the material parameters in the sample sent to each of them is not insignificant. In the sample sent to the Public Analyst the ash content is 4.04% whereas in the sample sent to the CFTRI it is 6%. The ash insoluble in dilute HCL is 2.55% in the CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 14 of 15 sample sent to the Public Analyst whereas it is 1.95% in the sample sent to the CFTRI. The lead content is Nil in the first and 5.4 ppm in the second. These variations are more than y.3% which is stated to be the permissible limit. It cannot therefore be said that identical representatives samples were sent to both the Public Analyst as well as the CFTRI".
24. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since there are contradictions and variations in the report of PA and CFL which is beyond the permissible limit of .3 %, it appears that sample was not representative one and therefore, benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused. Hence, accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 13th August, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 147/07
DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 15 of 15
CC No. 147/07
DA Vs. Puran Chand
13.08.2013.
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused with the counsel Sh. R.N. Gujral.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused has furnished B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 15,000/. The same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/13.08.2013 CC No. 147/07 DA Vs. Puran Chand Chaddha Page 16 of 15