Delhi District Court
Food Inspector vs . 1. Baidri Nath Puri on 28 April, 2011
::1::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-II,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEWDELHI
C.C. N0. 36/99
Food Inspector Vs. 1. Baidri Nath Puri
Department of PFA S/o Shri Charan Dass
Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Puri Brothers
A-20, Lawrence Road 803, Main Bazar
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Sabzi Mandi, Delhi
R/o: 38, Kedar Building,
Sabzi Mandi, Delhi
(Discharged vide order dated 06.08.2001)
2. M/s Siel Foods & Fertilisers Industries
Vanaspati Depot, 15 Shivaji Marg
New Delhi
(Discharged vide order dated 06.08.2001)
3. Ajay Tandon
Sr. Manager Production
M/s Siel Foods & Fertilisers Industries
Vanaspati Depot, 15 Shivaji Marg
New Delhi
(Discharged vide order dated 06.08.2001)
4. M/s Sunpac Oil Limited
A-1118, Riico Industrial Area
Phase-III, (Bhiwadi), Rajasthan
5. Ashwani Kumar, Chemist
M/s Sunpac Oil Limited
A-1118, Riico Industrial Area
Phase-III, (Bhiwadi), Rajasthan
CC No. 36/99
DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc.
::2::
JUDGMENT
Serial number of the case : 36/99
Date of the commission of the offence : 01.09.1998
Date of filing of the complaint : 09.04.1999
Name of the Complainant, if any : Sh. Rajpal Singh, Food Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : S. 2 (ia) (a) (b) (c) (h) & (i) of the Act
of 1954 , punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w
S. 7 of the Act of 1954
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Arguments heard & concluded on : 28.04.2011
Judgment announced on : 28.04.2011
Brief statement of the reasons for such decision:
1. The present complaint was filed by the Delhi Administration through FI Shri Rajpal Singh as on 09.04.1999. It is averred therein that on 01.09.1998 at about 6:30 PM, FI Shri Rajpal Singh purchased a sample of "Vanaspati" (Rath), a food article for analysis from accused Baidri Nath Puri (Prop.), S/o Shri Charan Dass of M/s Puri Brothers, 803, Main Bazar, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The said food article was stored there for sale and said Baidri Nath Puri was found conducting the business of the said food article at that time. The sample consisted of 3 sealed polypacks each containing 1 liter (897 gms) of Vanaspati taken as such in original condition, having identical label declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Shri H.P.S. Saran, SDM/LHA. The FI divided the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and dry Jar. Each Plastic Jar CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::3::
containing the sample was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. Vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slips and on the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice in Form VI was given and price was paid against Vendor's Receipt of the same date. Panchnama too was prepared at the spot. All the documents prepared by the FI were signed by the accused Baidri Nath Puri and also by Shri Bhramanand, FA as witness. Efforts were made to join public witnesses but none came forward.
2. It is further revealed in the complaint that one counterpart of the sample was sent to the PA and the remaining two counterparts were deposited with the LHA; all in intact condition. PA had given the opinion that "the sample does not conform to the standards laid down under Item No. A.19 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 because sample shows presence of argemone oil. It is injurious to health and also likely to cause death". Thereafter, the requisite sanction U/s 20 of the Act was obtained and the present complaint was filed.
3. Further accused Baidri Nath Puri was the Vendor-cum-Proprietor of the said firm at the time of sampling. The sample commodity was purchased from M/s Siel Foods Fertiliser Industries, Vanaspati Depot, 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi and accused Ajay Tandon, Sr. Manager (Production) was In-Charge and responsible for the conduct of the business. The manufacturer of the sample commodity was M/s Sunpac CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::4::
Oil Ltd. and accused Ashwani Kumar i.e. Chemist of the accused company was found to be a Nominee and the person responsible for the day to day conduct of the business.
4. The accused persons were summoned vide order dated 09.04.1999. On appearance accused no. 4 i.e. M/s Sunpac Oil Limited exercised its right and option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and got the second counterpart of the sample analysed from the Director CFL. The Director CFL vide his Report dated 17.06.1999 opined that "the sample of Rath Vanaspati is adulterated.".
5. Thereafter, accused nos. 1 to 3 moved application U/s 294 Cr. P.C. In view of the submissions made in the application and as per the statements of accused no. 3 i.e. Ajay Tandon, Nominee of M/s Siel Foods & Fertiliser Industries (firm which supplied the sample commodity to the vendor Baidri Nath Puri) and accused no. 5 Ashwani Kumar, Chemist of M/s Sunpac Oil Ltd. (Manufacturer of the sample commodity), accused nos. 1 to 3 stood discharged vide order dated 06.08.2001.
6. Pre-Charge evidence stood closed vide order dated 15.05.2009. Charge for the violation of provisions U/s 2 (ia) (a) (b) (c) (h) & (i) of the PFA Act, punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w S. 7 of PFA Act was framed upon accused nos. 4 & 5, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::5::
trial.
7. 2 witnesses i.e. (PW-1) Shri Rajpal Singh; Food Inspector, (PW-2) Shri H.P.S. Saran; the then SDM/LHA were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PE stood closed vide order dated 19.05.2010.
8. Statements of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded as on 04.09.2010 wherein, the accused opted to lead evidence in their defence. However, no evidence was led by the accused persons and at the request of Ld. Defence Counsel,s DE stood closed vide order dated 26.11.2010.
9. File perused. Counsels heard.
10. As accused nos. 1 to 3 have already been given the benefit U/s 19 (2) of the Act of 1954, the material on record is to be appreciated so as to adjudge the same for deciding the fate of the proceedings as against the remaining accused persons i.e. accused nos. 4 & 5. Accused no. 4 is the Manufacturing Company of the given food product and the accused no. 5 is the Nominee thereof.
11. The sample of Vanaspati (Rath) lifted as on 01.09.1998 was got analysed from the PA and his Report was made the basis for initiating the proceedings against the accused persons. Perusal of the said CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::6::
Report reveals that the sample was found 'positive' for the adulterant called 'argemone'. The accused on being served with the summons; appeared, and one of the accused i.e. accused no. 4 exercised right and option U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and consequent thereto, the sample counterpart so selected by the accused / applicant was got analysed from the Central Food Laboratory (CFL). The Certificate furnished by the Director CFL reveals that the said counterpart was also found 'positive' for 'argemone'.
12. The prosecution; in order to prove its case, got examined two witnesses i.e. FI Shri Rajpal Singh and the then SDM/LHA Shri H.P.S. Saran. Both these witnesses have deposed in such a manner so as to cover each and every material assertion; forming part of the complaint / allegations against the accused. FI Shri Rajpal Singh has stated that sample of Vanaspati (Rath) was lifted from the given premises as on the day and time reflected in the complaint. He has further deposed that the sample proceedings so conducted were in adherence to the requisite procedural formalities. The documents Ex. PW 1/A to Ex. PW 1/C (Vendor's Receipt, Notice in Form VI and Panchnama) have duly been proved. The FI has also stated that the sample counterparts so prepared were accordingly sent to / deposited with; the PA and the SDM/LHA respectively; as per the requirements. The Report of the PA has been exhibited and proved as Ex. PW 1/J and Sanction U/s 20 of the Act stands proved vide Ex. PW 1/P. It has also been brought on CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::7::
record that the sample counterparts so sent to the Experts were received there in the concerned Laboratories in fit and intact condition. Moreover, the PA Report Ex. PW 1/J as well as the Certificate of the Director CFL dated 17.06.1999 also affirm the same fact. The sample counterpart sent to the PA was analysed within a period of less than a week from the date of sample proceedings as the Report stood signed / submitted as on 05.09.1998. Thus, it has very well been proved that the entire proceedings (including the analysis) were conducted and concluded promptly. The deposition made by the then SDM/LHA examined as PW-2 is none the less on the same pattern and is thus of corroborative nature also.
13. As far as the Report of the Director CFL dated 17.06.1999 is concerned, the same is not only per se admissible, but is also the conclusive evidence of the facts / contents thereof. Hence, vide the said Report, it has conclusively been proved that the sample of Vanaspati (Rath) was found adulterated with the non-edible oil called argemone.
14. Further, for the defence side it was still open to impeach the veracity of the prosecution witnesses by making them to pass through the test of cross examination. It was also open for them to raise the defence on the permissible pretexts such as -
(i) any sort of variations between the two Reports;CC No. 36/99
DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::8::
(ii) the lacunas during the sample proceedings;
(iii) non-adherence to the requisite procedural formalities etc. etc. However, there is almost nothing in the name of the cross examination. PW-1 FI Shri Rajpal Singh produced himself for the purpose of cross examination at two stages i.e. the stage of the pre-
charge evidence and, after framing of the charge. At the stage of pre- charge evidence as on 14.08.2007 only one question was put to him wherein, he replied and admitted that 'he had not taken the (case) file personally to the Director PFA for the purpose of obtaining the sanction (U/s 20 of the Act of 1954) for launching the prosecution. Again, at the 'after - charge stage', the said witness was not at all cross examined and despite opportunity it was concluded as 'Nil'. As far as the cross examination of PW-2 is concerned, the same is being reproduced hereunder:-
" XXXXX by Shri O.P. Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the accused -
I remained as Local LHA for a period of about 4 - 5 months. I am B. Sc (Agriculture) and also studied Food Technology during Graduation. I also got training from the Department ".
15. Thus, it is clear that for all practical purposes, the testimony of both the prosecution - witnesses have gone un-rebutted. Not even a CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::9::
single suggestion was put to either of these witnesses so as to question the prosecution story. It is also worth mentioning that while recording the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. (as on 04.09.2010) the accused had opted for leading defence evidence. Yet, no witness in defence was ever produced despite opportunity. Rather the defence evidence stood closed as on 26.11.2010 at the very request of Ld. Defence Counsel. Consequently, the entire prosecution story has remained unchallenged at each and every stage. In the given eventuality, the Court does not find any reasons to disbelieve it (i.e. the prosecution story) and is bound to conclude that the allegations leveled against the accused persons; leveled by way of the complaint, have duly been substantiated and proved; by way of the cogent and positive evidence; so led during the course of proceedings. The same, coupled with the conclusive evidence in the form of the Certificate of the Director CFL dated 17.06.1999, impels the Court to conclude that whatever has been asserted by way of the complaint; has duly been proved during the course of the proceedings. Both the accused persons (accused nos. 4 & 5) are thus found and held guilty.
Be put up on 09.05.2011, for arguments on sentence.
Announced in the open Court Raghubir Singh
on 28th April, 2011 ACMM-II/ New Delhi
CC No. 36/99
DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc.
::10::
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-II, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEWDELHI C.C. N0. 36/99 Food Inspector Vs. 1. Baidri Nath Puri (Discharged) Department of PFA S/o Shri Charan Dass Govt. of NCT of Delhi M/s Puri Brothers A-20, Lawrence Road 803, Main Bazar Indl. Area, Delhi - 35 Sabzi Mandi, Delhi R/o: 38, Kedar Building, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi
2. M/s Siel Foods & Fertilisers Industries Vanaspati Depot, 15 Shivaji Marg New Delhi. (Discharged)
3. Ajay Tandon (Discharged) Sr. Manager Production M/s Siel Foods & Fertilisers Industries Vanaspati Depot, 15 Shivaji Marg New Delhi
4. M/s Sunpac Oil Limited A-1118, Riico Industrial Area Phase-III, (Bhiwadi), Rajasthan
5. Ashwani Kumar, Chemist M/s Sunpac Oil Limited A-1118, Riico Industrial Area Phase-III, (Bhiwadi), Rajasthan CC No. 36/99 DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::11::
ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Shri Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for the Complainant.
Convicts in person with Shri O.P. Malhotra, Advocate.
Heard on the point of sentence. Ld. Counsel for convicts has prayed for taking a lenient view on the ground that the accused / convict no. 5 is an employee of accused no. 4 Company and was made an accused in the proceedings in the capacity of being the Nominee thereof.
On the other hand, Ld. SPP has argued that the convicts do not deserve any leniency as the offence committed by them has been proved beyond doubt and that such sort of adulteration is a menace to the society. It is also argued that the offences under the PFA Act are economic offences and should be dealt with suitably and that they should not be allowed to dupe the innocent mases and to make money by selling such adulterated articles.
As a matter of fact the accused Company has been found selling the adulterated food article with an adulterant like argemone; the very nature of which is injurious to health. Moreover, the convict Company was legally bound to produce / manufacture such like products by adhering to the highest standards / norms, so as to produce the food article meeting the requisite standard - specifications. The casual approach on the part of the convict Company requires to be dealt with accordingly.
Taking into consideration the submissions as summarised herein above, the convict Ashwani Kumar is hereby sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-CC No. 36/99
DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc. ::12::
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default thereof the convict shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. Fine paid.
Company i.e. convict no. 4 is hereby sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). Fine paid.
At this stage, at request of the Ld. Counsel, convict Ashwani Kumar is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount until the expiry of the appeal period. Bail bond furnished. Accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Raghubir Singh
on 09th May, 2011 ACMM-II/New Delhi
CC No. 36/99
DA Vs. Baidri Nath etc.