Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through G.F.I vs Papinder Kumar on 3 October, 2011
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996
Date of decision: 3.10.2011
State of Haryana through G.F.I.
....Appellant
Versus
Papinder Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present: Mr.Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
L.N.MITTAL, J.(Oral)
State of Haryana has filed this appeal assailing acquittal of respondent-accused Papinder Kumar by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana vide impugned judgment dated 29.8.1995.
Government Food Inspector (for short 'GFI') filed complaint against respondent -accused Papinder Kumar for his prosecution under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') on the averments that sample of Besan seized from the shop of the respondent -accused on 14.11.1986 was found to contain four living weevils, one dead weevil and three living meal worms, as per report of Public Analyst and, therefore, the sample was CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996 2 adulterated.
Notice of accusation for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was served upon the accused-respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Dr.V.K.Bansal, PW1 (Medical Officer) and Hukam Singh, the then GFI PW3 stated about taking sample of Besan from the shop of the accused-respondent and necessary procedure followed for sealing and labelling the same. Hukam Singh, GFI also stated about subsequent proceeding after receipt of the report of Public Analyst. Jai Singh, Clerk, PW2 stated that copy of report of Public Analyst alongwith forwarding letter was sent by Local Health Authority to the accused.
The accused in his cross-examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent.
No evidence was led by the accused in his defence.
The learned Trial Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 29.8.1995 acquitted the accused-respondent. Feeling dissatisfied, State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal for which leave was granted and the appeal was admitted.
Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that record of the trial court had been weeded out and destroyed. When the said record was requisitioned in this appeal, report to this effect was received. Thereupon, the trial court record was got reconstructed. However, reconstructed record, CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996 3 as received, reveals that the entire record has not been reconstructed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance.
Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that presence of living weevils, dead weevil and living meal worms in the sample as found by the Public Analyst would depict that the sample was adulterated. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in State vs. Dinesh Kumar 1986(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 194.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that no living or dead weevil or meal worm was noticed by GFI or by Dr. V.K.Bansal, Medical Officer in the Besan lying at the shop of the accused at the time of taking sample and therefore, if the weevils and worms found by the Public Analyst had grown in the sample after the sample was seized by GFI, it cannot be said that the Besan was adulterated at the time of taking sample. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana 1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 7 and a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Radhey Lal Gupta vs. State and another 1979(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 91.
I have carefully considered rival contentions.
Both Dr.V.K. Bansal PW1 and GFI Hukam Singh PW3 have admitted that at the time of taking sample, there was no inspect or weevil in the Besan at the shop of the accused. It means that weevils (living or dead) CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996 4 and meal worms found by the Public Analyst were not present in the Besan when the sample was seized from the accused, but could have possibly grown thereafter before the sample was examined by the Public Analyst. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Besan at the time of seizing of sample was adulterated or was having any weevil or meal worm. It may be mentioned that Public Analyst has not reported that the sample was found adulterated or that the sample was unfit for human consumption or that the sample was wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or was insect infested as required under Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act. In this view of the matter also, the food article i.e. Besan kept by the accused for sale, cannot be said to be adulterated. In this view, I am supported by the judgments in the case of Ram Sarup (supra) and in the case of Radhey Lal Gupta (supra). The judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) is completely distinguishable on facts. In that case, there were 26 living and dead inspects in the sample of seized Suji. In the instant case, in view of the statements of both the Medical Officer and the GFI, it cannot be said that the food article i.e. Besan kept by the accused contained any weevil or meal worm at the time of seizure of sample from the respondent-accused.
For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference in the instant appeal after expiry of almost 25 years of the seizure of the sample of the food article from the respondent-accused. Even if two views are possible, the judgment of acquittal should not be reversed in appeal. The view taken CRA No. 487-DBA of 1996 5 by the learned Magistrate to acquit the respondent-accused cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
As a necessary consequence, the instant appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused -respondent stand discharged.
03.10.2011 ( L.N.MITTAL ) gsv JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No.