Delhi High Court
State (Delhi Admn.) vs Vinod Kumar And Ors. on 23 February, 2005
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th June, 1985, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, in Case No. 290/82, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondents herein of the offence/charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act.
2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are as under :
"that allegations made in the complaint are that on 18.9.82, at about 11.45 P.M., R.P. Singh, F.I. purchased a sample of supari for analysis under the P.F.A. Act/rules from accused Vinod Kumar at the aforesaid premises. One counter-part of the sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst who gave the opinion that the sample contained 6 rat droppings but the public analyst has not given any opinion whether the sample was adulterated or not. After the receipt of the public analyst's report, consent Ex.PW1/B was obtained from the Secretary, Medical, Delhi Administration, Delhi and complaint Ex.PW1/A was filed in the court.
3. Accused Vinod Kumar exercised his right u/s 13 P.F.A. Act and obtained the report of the Director, CFSL, Pune. The Director declared the sample to be adulterated on the ground that two pieces of rat excreta were present."
3. The trial court on a appreciation of the evidence on record has returned a finding that the supari on testing was found to be unfit for human consumption and that mere presence of two pieces of rat excreta does not bring the accused under the mischief of the offence, for which they are charged.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the material on record. I find that for supari no standards have been fixed under the rules that can attract the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Moreso, the Act itself permits certain amount of rodent hair and excreta in the food articles, as has been noted by the learned Magistrate in his judgment under challenge. Nothing has been shown to me as to how and on what basis the judgment under challenge can be said to be perverse. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. Crl. A. 55/1986 is accordingly dismissed. Bailable warrants issued vide order dated 7th December, 2004, stand discharged.