Delhi District Court
Sanjiv Kumar vs Delhi Administration on 1 July, 2008
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.K. SARVARIA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUGDE NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 44/1999/1987
Sanjiv Kumar
s/o Shri Om Prakash
r/o village Gulawati,
Distt Bulandshaher UP.
Appellant
Vs.
Delhi Administration, Delhi
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 45/99
Sanjiv Kumar
s/o Shri Om Prakash
r/o village Gulawati,
Distt Bulandshaher UP.
Appellant
Vs.
Delhi Administration, Delhi
Respondent
Date of Institution: 23.7.1987
Date when arguments were
heard 16.5.08
: 2 :
Date of Judgment 01.7.08
JUDGMENT
By this judgment I shall decide two appeals bearing CA No. 44/99 and CA No. 45/99 as both these appeals arose out of the same judgment dated 18/5/1987 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by which he convicted both the appellants under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( in short PFA Act). By subsequent order on sentence dated 20/5/1987 the ld trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs 2000/ and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellant has preferred the present two appeals against the said judgment of the learned trial court.
BRIEF FACTS In appeal No. CA 44/99 the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26/6/1985 at about 4.45 pm Food Inspector Sh Jeet Ram purchased a sample of cow's milk for analysis from appellant from truck no. DEG 936 at Nizamuddin Bridge, Delhi where the said appellant was found storing exposing for sale and selling the said article of food as vendor. Food inspector divided the sample into : 3 : three equal parts after homogenizing the food article in accordance with rules of PFA Act. One of the counter part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis who gave his report stating that the sample is adulterated as the milk solids not fat has been reported to be 7.89 % against the prescribed limit of 8.5 %. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from competent authority the complaint was filed against the appellant.
In Appeal No. CA 45/99 the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26/6/1985 at about 4.45 pm Food Inspector Sh Rajpal Singh purchased a sample of cow's milk for analysis from appellant of truck no. DEG 936 at Nizamuddin Bridge, Delhi where the said appellant was found storing, exposing for sale and selling the said article of food as vendor. Food inspector divided the sample into three equal parts after homogenizing the food article in accordance with rules of PFA Act. One of the counter parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis who gave his report stating that the sample is adulterated as the milk solids not fat has been reported to be 7.38 % against the prescribed limit of 8.5 %. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from competent authority the complaint was filed against the appellant before learned trial court. CHARGE AND PLEA OF THE ACCUSED:
: 4 : Notice under section 251 CrPC for the offence punishable under section 7/16 PFA Act were given to the appellant in criminal appeal no. 45/99 and charge under section 7/16 PFA Act was fraemd against the appellant to which appellant pleaded not guilty.
PROECUTION EVIDENCE In appeal No. CA 44/99 and 45/99 CW1 Sh S.R. Nimje was examined by the learned trial court.
In appeal CA No. 44/99 prosecution in support of its case has examined three witnesses in all. PW1 Local Health Authority Sh Gopal Singh, PW2 Sh Jeet Ram, Food Inspector, PW3 Food Inspector Sh Ranjit Singh.
In appeal CA No. 45/99 prosecution in support of its case has examined three witnesses in all. PW1 Local Health Authority Sh M.R. Grover, PW2 Food Inspector Sh R.P. Singh, PW3 Food Inspector Sh Narain Singh.
PLEA AND DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED In both appeals appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC has denied the prosecution case in toto and has stated that it is a false case against him and he was innocent. He had come to Delhi from Guhawti for the purpose of an interview for the post of Development Manager and was to got to Mukerjee Nagar.
: 5 : He had taken lift in the truck. The truck was intercepted by the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector had inquired from the owner of the truck and the milk. It was stated by the owners that it was written on the truck that it belongs to Healthways Dairy. It had also been told by the owners of the milk to the Food Inspector that the milk had to be standardized before the same can be sold. He was not the owner of the milk.
In appeal No. CA 44/99 appellant in his defence examined one witness namely DW1 Sh Ali Hasan.
In Appeal CA No. 45/99 the appellant in his defence has examined two witness namely DW1 Sh Ali Hasan and DW2 Sh K.K. Kalsi FINDINGS:
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for State and have gone through the trial court record and the appeal files and the authorities cited on behalf of both parties, carefully.
On behalf of the appellant the argument is that the milk was not properly homogenised before taking sample in these two cases and a proper representative sample was not sent to the Public Analyst or to the Director CFL. This argument is disputed on behalf of the respondent State.
: 6 : In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Khem Raj 2007 I AD (Cr.) (DHC) 605, relied on behalf of the appellant our Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:
" Whenever there is some liquid in some container, the law of gravity acts on the liquid and heavier particles of the liquid settle down, while the lighter particles of the liquid remain on the upper layers. Similarly, a still liquid normally does not have uniform temperature. The temperature is different in different layers of the liquid. The hotter layer is always on the top and the cooler particles keep going down. The hotter layer is always lighter in weight and the cooler is heavier. It is for this reason that while taking sample of any liquid food article, it is necessary that before taking sample the liquid is stirred thoroughly clockwise and anti clockwise, up and down so that, the entire contents of the liquid are uniformly spread throughout the liquid. If proper stirring is not done and sample is taken, the sample cannot be said to be the representative sample of the liquid.
In the present case, the sample of milk was taken but there was no conclusive evidence that before taking sample the milk had been thoroughly stirred clockwise and anti clockwise, up and down with a plunger to bring the entire milk in homogenised state so that the representative sample of the milk could be taken. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence doubted that the plunger was carried and used for stirring the milk and the sample was taken after making the milk : 7 : thoroughly homogenised. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondent.
I find no infirmity in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal is hereby dismissed."
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Joginder Singh 2006(I) FAC 274 (HP), it was observed as follows:
" However with regard to the milk being made homogeneous the prosecution, in my opinion, has failed to prove its case. It is well settled law that before the Food Inspector takes a sample for the purpose of analysis he should ensure that the sample is a proper representative of the entire milk. For doing so, the milk must be stirred and made homogeneous. In the present case the Food Inspector in his examinationinchief did not even state a single word as to whether he had made the milk homogeneous or not. An ill advised suggestion was made to this witness in crossexamination that he had not properly shaken the milk before taking the sample. In fact there was no need to make this suggestion. Obviously, the Food Inspector denied the suggestion. However, this also does not prove that the milk was made homogeneous. Merely shaking the milk will not make it homogeneous. As per the case of the prosecution itself there was 20 kg. milk being carried by the accused. Such a large quantity could not have been made homogeneous merely by shaking it. It had to be properly stirred with a rod or a ladle. There is no evidence to show that this was done in the present case. In fact PW2' Vinod Kumar, who : 8 : was an eyewitness, has also not supported the prosecution case. According to him when he reached the spot the sample had already been taken by the Food Inspector. It is no doubt true that there is no rule of law that conviction under the Act cannot be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector. The Apex Court in Prem Ballab and another v. The State (Delhi Administration), 1976 (2) FAC 53 : 1977 SC 56, has clearly held as follows:
"There is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of a Food Inspector. It is only out of a sense of caution that the Courts insist that the testimony of a Food Inspector should be corroborated by some independent witness. This is a necessary caution which has to be borne in mind because the Food Inspector may in a sense be regarded as an interested witness, but this caution is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law; if it were otherwise, it would be possible for any guilty person to escape punishment by resorting to the device of bribing panch witnesses."
However, in the present case even the statement of Food Inspector does not satisfy the conscience of this Court and it does not reveal that the sample was made homogeneous.
In Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another 1982 (2) FAC 372 :(1983) 1 SCC 135, it was found that proper churning of the sample of the curd was not done. In this context, Their Lordships observed :
"...........We are conscious of the fact that in milk : 9 : and milk preparations including curd, it is distinctly possible that the fat settles on the top and in order to find out whether the milk or its preparation such as curd has prescribed content, the sample must be homogeneous and representative so that the analysis can furnish reliable proof of nature and content of the article of food under analysis. For this purpose churning is one of the methods of making the sample homogeneous and representative. But having said this, there is nothing in the Act or the rules which prescribes that churning must be done by some instrument, and that churning done by hand would not provide a homogeneous and representative sample. Common sense dictates that articles of food like milk and curd when churned with hand would properly mix up from top to bottom."
It is thus apparent that the Food Inspector is duty bound to ensure that the sample he takes is a representative and homogeneous sample of the entire milk preparation and such a sample can only be taken after proper churning or stirring of the entire contents. The evidence in the present case is totally lacking in this behalf. Even if the suggestion which the Food Inspector has denied is taken into consideration all that it shows is that he shook the vessel containing the milk. This would not amount to stirring or churning the milk. Therefore, the sample taken by the Food Inspector by no stretch of imagination can be said to be homogeneous or of representative character. Therefore, the acquittal of : 10 : the accused on this ground is justified."
In State (Delhi Administration) v. Kasturi Lal 1986 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal (AIPFAJ) 105 (Del), it was observed as follows:
" .........According to item A.11.01.11 of Appendix B to the prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955, standard of cow milk prescribed is that it should contain nonfatty solids to the extent of 8.5 per cent and fat to the extent of 3.5 per cent. NO doubt in this case nonfatty solids being 7.1 per cent fell short of the standard mentioned above, yet the aggregate of the fat and the nonfatty solids in this case comes to 13.1 per cent (in accordance with the report of Central Food Laboratory) as against aggregate of the standard of both nonfatty solids and fat of 12 per cent. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the milk was not properly stirred before taking sample and was thus not homogenised which meant that the sample which was taken was not proper representative of the milk being sold by the respondent. Learned counsel relied upon the following statement of R. P. Singh (P.W. 2) who took the sample :
"The milk contained in the drum was properly homogenised before taking the sample at about 5 P.M. and then 660 ml. of cows milk was paisa against a vendor's receipt Ex. P.W. executed by the accused and signed by him at point A attested by me and the accompanying witness. I agree with the learned counsel that although : 11 : the witnesses have stated that the milk was properly homogenised before taking sample, yet has not been told as to what was the process used for that homogenising. P.W. 2 has not disclosed as to w at was the contrivance or device by which the whole milk was properly stirred so as to become homogeneous. Mere saying that the milk was homogenised is an opinion of the witness and not ' a statement of fact on the basis of which the court can form opinion.
Even otherwise there is an authority of this High Court (by Prithvi Raj, J.) in M. C. I. v. Jawahar Lal.[1980 (II) F.A.C. 145 (Del)]. In that case it was held that when percentage of fat was higher than standard and percentage of solids not fat was slightly lower, and the aggregate of the two was more than the aggregate of the standard, the inevitable inference was that her the test was erroneous or that there was imbalance in the fodder fed to Z cow which resulted in high percentage of fat while giving lower percentage in solids not fat and that, therefore, the accused was rightly acquitted, in that case reliance was placed on a number of authorities."
In these two cases though the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that the milk from the can was poured into the other can and the process of pouring in the pouring was repeated 34 times before taking sample but this fact does not find mention in the panchnama proved by the prosecution which is Ex PW1/C in both cases and it does not show the process of homogenisation or of the fact that the milk was poured from one can to another was mentioned nor the panchnama in these two cases show that the other can in which the milk was poured was dry and clean or the sample bottles were also dry and clean. These facts are also found missing in the complaint filed in these two cases before : 12 : learned Metropolitan Magistrate.In Rama Nand v. State of Haryana 1988 (I) FAC 157 (P & H), it was observed as follows:
" ..........It is not necessary that the complaint should contain all the details connected with the performance of an act by a Government official in the discharge of is duty, but at the same time it cannot be said that the complainant can remain content by only giving sketchy facts in the complaint. The complaint in criminal cases has a very important role. It is the earliest version of the case which is presented before the Court. In food cases this complaint this complaint assumes more importance regarding the details of the facts since it is prepared by a Food Inspector, who is educated and is presumed to be proficient in the performance of his duties to detect adulteration in articles of food keeping in view the technicalities of law. They are expected to keep in touch with the latest law whether statutory or Judge made on the subject. The Food Inspectors prepared the complaints after a lapse of many days and in certain cases months after the detection of the crime or the result given by the Public Analyst. As these complaints are prepared ling time after the detection of the crime, they are expected to contain details like making of the bulk, from which a sample is taken, homogeneous. The principle that bulk should be made homogeneous before the sample in taken has attained judicial recognition and is well known to the persons who are engaged in the trade of articles of food and the law enforcement agencies. It is rather late in the day for the State counsel to take up the plea that the Food Inspectors do not know the : 13 : importance of this aspect of their act. The omission of the fact regarding stirring of the milk in a case in which sample of milk is taken, assumes importance as its later introduction in evidence amounts to improvement of the part of the witnesses to bring their statements in conformity with the law on the subject. If the Food Inspector, at the time of making of the statement, exhibits knowledge about this aspect of law, he cannot be said to be ignorant at the time when he drafted the complaint. In The State of Punjab and another v. Jagan Nath 1986(2) C.L.R. 479, a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana Court observed:
"There is, therefore, no gainsaying that before a sample of milk is taken by the Food Inspector he must ensure that the milk has been made homogeneous. Otherwise the report of the analyst is bound to be misleading regarding the contents of fat and solids not fat. While assessing the value of the report it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain if the sample of milk had been properly taken by the Food Inspector. The proper sample would only be of milk made homogeneous by stirring. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the milk was not properly stirred and made homogeneous it is not bound to rely upon the report of Public Analyst to base conviction of the milk vendor. To come to a conclusion that the milk was made homogeneous when the sample was taken the contents of the complaint have necessarily to be looked into. In case the factum of stirring of the milk is missing : 14 : in the complaint, it is open to the trial Court to entertain doubt on the statements of the Food Inspector and his witnesses in respect thereof."
The effort of Shri Satpal Malik, Food Inspector PW 1 and Dr. Harbans Lal Arora PW 2, cannot escape the inference that they had made improvement to make their evidence more effective and weighty against Rama Nand petitioner. It was for the first time in their statements at the trial that this was made known to the accuses. In the documents prepared prior to this, there is no mention of the stirring of the milk. Even the complaint prepared much later does not have even a distant reflection about his performance of the duty by the Food Inspector."
In Shyam Lal v. State 1991(I) FAC 223 (Del) relied on behalf of the appellant, it was held as follows:
" Submission of learned counsel for the respondent has been that the very fact of the Food Inspector having mentioned that the milk was made homogeneous would indicate that the sample was taken properly and petitioner has not made any grievance in this regard, I, however, don not agree with this submission. For the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner minimum sentence is provided a strict compliance of the provision is expected from a Food Inspector taking sample. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that it was incumbent upon the Food Inspector to have mentioned in the documents prepared at the time of taking the sample that the : 15 : milk was made homogeneous. Merely his saying so in the Court in my view, cannot be considered to be sufficient that it was complied by him. This fact, would amount to an improvement made during trial which is not permissible and cannot be relied upon. I find support for this view from the case Har Lal v. State of Haryana 1988 (I) RCR 666 (Supra) and Mitha Ram v. The State of Punjab 1989 (II) FAC 34: 1989 C.C. Cases 213. Considering all these judgement I am clearly of the view that no latitude can be granted to the Food Inspector to make improvement in the case at the time of the trial and this material fact having been proved that the milk was not stirred properly before taking the sample is also a ground on account of which the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside."
In the light of the above case law since the fact of process of homogenisation of the milk before taking sample is missing in the panchnama and the complaint the statement of the witnesses made in the court for the first time in this regard are liable to be discarded.
In the present cases there are variations in the report of the Public Analyst and that of the Director CFL in the respective counterpart samples sent to them.In State v. Mahender Kumar and ors. 2008 (1) FAC 177 (Del), relied on behalf of the appellant it was held as follows:
" While both reports have concurred in the : 16 : 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 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 by .3% which is stated to be the permissible limit. It cannot therefore be said that identical representative samples were sent to both the Public Analyst as well as the CFTRI.
In Kanshi Nath v. State 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 Kanshi Nath after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999 (1) FAC 1 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273, this Court observed as under (PFA Cases, p. 227):
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.
Following the said judgment of this : 17 : Court in Kanshi Nath, it is held that in the instant case the variation in the samples sent to the Public Analyst and the CFTRI is beyond the acceptable limits and renders the samples unrepresentative. The conviction of the Respondents can, therefore, not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ASJ acquitting the Respondents calls for no interference."
In MCD v Jawahar Lal 1980 (II) FAC 145 (Del), it was observed as follows:
" Without expressing our opinion with regard to the representative nature of the sample, we are inclined to accept the second submission sought to be urged by Shri Soni. From the certificate of the Director it cannot be inferred that any water had been added to the milk. The nonfatty solid falling below the prescribed standard would only justify an inference that because of the excess in fat contents either the cow was not properly fed or the report of the Public Analyst was erroneous. Shri Randhir Jain, however, contends that to accept this contention would amount to holding as enquiry into the certificate of the Director. Further, no ground has been made out by leading evidence to challenge the correctness of the same which, in law, is conclusive of the facts stated therein. That being so, this will be embarking upon the domain of conjectures in accepting the submission of Shri Soni. We do not agree. When asked to explain for the presence of large quantity of fat contents in the sample than the prescribed standard, Shri Jain had no answer. As a : 18 : matter of fact a question was addressed to Shri .P. Sharma, Public Analyst who was examined as D.W. 1 by asking him to describe reasons for a sample containing 8.14 per cent milk solids not fat and at 5.1 per cent when tested in August 1976. On again being tested on or about 25th January, 1977 would be found to contain 4.8 percent fat and milk solids not fat 7.7 percent. Shri Sharma stated that he could not give any rationable or scientific reasons for such a difference.
Admittedly, the sample taken was that of cow's milk and that being so the fat contents ought to be 3.5 percent. Making allowance for marginal difference the fat contents could not be 4.8 percent in cow's milk. There is thus no escape from the inference that either the test conducted was erroneous or that there was imbalance in the fodder fed to the cow which resulted in the high percentage of fat present in it while giving lower percentage in solids not fats. In this view of the matter the question of law, including the one with regard the maintainability of the appeal, are not required be gone into."
In MCD v. Lala Ram and anr, 1980 (II) FAC 147 (Del), it was held:
" It is true that the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and that the report of the Public Analyst cannot be made the basis for recording conviction or acquittal of an accused person, but in the instant case what has shocked us is that the two samples, one sent to the : 19 : Public Analyst seeking his opinion and the other counterpart sent to the Director seeking his opinion, appear to be absolutely divergent and different from each other. The Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to explain the circumstances under which the divergent results were given by the two Competent authorities in examining the sample. It is for this reason that we have looked into the report of the Public Analyst more so when the consequences involved are penal and the minimum sentence of imprisonment to be awarded to a delinquent person found guilty of having committed an offence under the Act, is 6 months, Rigorous Imprisonment. As per his certificate dt. Dec. 3 1976, the Director found not only "a few dead and living insects" but also "excessive amount of foreign seeds" in the counter part of the sample. Not only this, the Director did not find any rodent excreta as was found by the Public Analyst. As earlier noted in this judgment, the Public Analyst did not find edible seeds other than cumin seeds in the sample and the remark given in his report against the column "Edible seeds other than cumin seeds" was "Nil". Similar remark was given by the Public Analyst in his report against the column "Insect infestation per 100 gms." It is really strange as to how, if the sample was the same, the Director was able to find a few dead and living insects besides noticing excessive amount of foreign seeds, more especially when the Director had certified that the seals of the sample sent to him were intact. We are conscious of the fact that in law the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public : 20 : Analyst and that it is the certificate of the Director alone which has to be taken into consideration for recording acquittal or conviction against an accused person, but in the circumstances noted above, we are compelled to look into the report of the Public Analyst as well. We may warn that this judgment not be taken as a precedent for comparing the certificate of the Director with the report of the Public Analyst, as in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we were, as noted earlier, compelled to look into the report of the Public Analyst, because it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the counterpart of the sample sent to the Director appeared to be sample of another person rather than of the respondent."
In Criminal Appeal. 44/1999/1987 the report of Public Analyst shows that the milk sample contained milk fat 5.2% and milk solids not fat 7.89% while the report of Director CFL shows the milk fat 2.2% while milk solids not fat 9.42%. Similarly in Criminal Appeal No. 44/1989/1987 in the Public Analyst report Ex PW1/E the milk fat contents strong 5.4 per cent and milk solids not fat as 7.8% while in the report of Director CFL the milk fat contents strong 4% and of milk solids not fat contents 7.8% in the milk sample. Therefore, gave marginal difference about the contents of milk fat as well as milk solids not fat in the report of Public Analyst and that of Director CFL in both these cases which : 21 : in the light of the 33 authorities of our Hon High Court shows that the milk samples taken were not of representative character of the whole milk present in that can in question at the spot.
On behalf of the respondent State reliance is placed uponIn "Jagdish Prasad v. State of Delhi" AIR 1982 SC 57, it was observed as follows:
" The offence took place nearly eleven years ago and there is no evidence on the record to show what was the extent of insect infestation in the sample when it was taken. A rather interesting feature of this case is that when, on the application of the prosecution, the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory was brought on the record of the case, the earlier report of the analyst was replaced by that report. The result is that though there is evidence on the record to show that the sample was "highly insect infested" on September 10, 1971 when the Director of the Central Food Laboratory gave his report there is no evidence on the record to show as to what was the state of the sample on October 3, 1970. Shri Bawa Gurcharan Singh argues that in this state of affairs the appellant is entitled to an acquittal but we are not inclined to accept that submission. The evidence on the whole can be accepted as justifying the conclusion that on the date on which the sample was taken, it was insect infested within the meaning of section 2 (ia)
(f) of the Act."
In Mathukutty v. State of Kerala , AIR 1988 Kerala 60, : 22 : it was observed as follows:
" We are not impressed by the argument that because there is disparity in the results declared by the public analyst and by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and living insects were present at the time of analysis, it has to be assumed that sample contained only eggs or larvae at the time of the sale or that there was rapid growth of insects after the date of sale or that the sample was not insect infested at the time of sale and the percentage of insect damaged matter could have been below 5% or even negligible at the time of sale. The report of the public analyst is superseded by the certificate of the Director. Even if there is wide variation between the Director's certificate and analyst's report, the former supersedes the latter and the superseded report cannot be revived for any purpose. The difference in the percentage of insect infested matter as reported in Ext. P6 and Ext. D1 cannot be an indication of any steady growth of insects or increase in infestation after the sale. One of us in Food Inspector v. Hameed, 1983 Ker LT 901 : (1983 Cri LJ NOC 224), after considering practically the entire case law on the point, including the decisions in Abdul Hameed v. Food Inspector, 1969 Ker LR 922, State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair, 1974 Ker LT 617 : (1975 Cri LJ 97) (FB), State of Kerala v. P.K. Chamu, 1975 Ker LT 411 and State of Kerala v. K.C. John, 1978 Ker LT 738 : (1979 Cri LJ NOC 48), observed in para 23 :
".....it is settled law that the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the certificate of the : 23 : Director which has conclusive effect also. Analysis in the two cases is done by different persons at different laboratories. It would not be surprising if, assuming the best conditions, there is some difference in the results of the two analyses. Even in cases where sampling and analysis is done to the satisfaction of the most exacting standards, there could be variation in the percentage of different components arrived at in the two laboratories. But, once the report of the Public Analyst is superseded by the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, there is no report of the Public Analyst available in the eyes of law for comparison with the certificate issued by the Director. The court cannot, therefore, legitimately make such a comparison and conclude that there are divergences and therefrom draw an inference that the sampling must have been done improperly. To arrive at such a conclusion would amount to flying in the face of settled position of the law and the terms of SubSecs. (3) and (5) of S.13 of the Act."
We hold that the above is the correct position of law. The divergences in the report and the certificate cannot be used to contend that the number of insects or the percentage of insect damaged seeds have increased during the interval between the analysis by the Public Analyst and the Director. Hence we cannot draw an inference that on the date of sampling, number of insects or : 24 : percentage of insect damaged seeds would have been much less than what is shown in the report or the certificate."
In Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) the sample of Amchoor Sabat, made from the peals of unripe mangoes, was taken from the shop of the appellant. The analyst did not mention in his report the extent of insect infestation. Therefore, the prosecution applied to the learned trial court under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act in the simple was sent to Director CFL for analysis which found it highly insect infected and it was held that the report of Director CFL replaced the report of analyst and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. In Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) the second sample was sent to Director CFL on the request of the prosecution and not of the accused. It was the prosecution wanted clarification of the and supersession of the report of analyst by the death of Director CFL. It was not the case in which the accused had challenged the the report of the Public Analyst under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act by getting the sample sent to Director CFL. Therefore, the facts of Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) are distinguishable on this case relied on behalf of the respondent State is inapplicable to the present appeals.
The decision of Kerala High Court in Mathukutty's : 25 : case relied on behalf of the respondent State being in conflict of the consistent view of Hon High Court in Mahender Kumar's case (supra), Lala Ram's case (supra) and Jawahar Lal's case (supra) is not of any help to the respondent State.
There may also be another reason for such a noticeable difference between the two reports of analysis of two counterparts of the milk sample, i.e., the sample sent to the Director CFL was decomposed and not fit for analysis.In Gian Chand v State,1978 (I) FAC 15 (Del), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants it was observed as follows:
" The Food Inspector, when he appeared. during the trial did not say that the sample retained by him was kept in a refrigerator. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram 195I77 F.A.C. (SC) 93: 1975 (I) F.A.C. 186 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
"The opinion of one of the experts, Dr. Sat Parkash, given in this case shows that in the case of a food article, like curd, it starts under going changes after a. week, if kept at room temperature, without a preservative, but remains fit for analysis for another 10 days thereafter. On the other hand if the sample is kept in a refrigerator, it will, preserve its fat and nonfatty solid contents for purposes of analysis for a total period of four weeks. If a preservative is added and the sample is kept at : 26 : room temperature, the percentage of fat and nonfatty solids contents for purposes of analysis will be retained for about four months, and in case it is kept in a refrigerator after adding the preservative, the total period which may be available for making analysis, without decomposition, will be six months. In this case, when the Food Inspector handed over the sample to the respondent, the respondent was not expected to keep it in a refrigerator. Consequently, without any preservative, the sample kept with him could have been analysed successfully during the next 17 days, whereas, if a preservative had been added, it could have been analysed successfully during the next four months."
Normally the sample with the Food Inspector, to which preservative had been added, could not have remained fit for analysis after more than six months even if it had been kept in a refrigerator. There being no evidence to that effect it will have to be presumed that it was not kept in a refrigerator and, therefore, decomposition should have taken place earlier, particularly as the months of August and September are fairly hot. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the genuineness of the sample which had been produced before the trial Magistrate, on January 3, 1966, is not beyond doubt. The seal having remained with the Food Inspector a change of the sample was not impossible. Except on the basis that the sample was : 27 : changed before being produced on January 3, 1966 it is difficult to explain the fact that it remained in a fit condition for analysis after eight months without being kept in a refrigerator."
In State v. V.K. Muttoo and Ors Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1996, Decided On: 13.11.2007 (Del), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant it was observed as follows:
" ........Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975 PFA cases
186. In that case complaint was filed in the court after about seven months from the date of raid and taking of sample of milk product (curd) from the shop of the accused which was on 20/09/1961. The complaint was filed on 23/05/1962. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in these circumstances, the valuable right available to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act of having the sample tested at Central Food Laboratory had stood denied to him. It was also observed that ordinarily it was possible for the prosecution to obtain the report of the Public Analyst and institute the prosecution within 17 days of the taking of the sample. Learned APP had submitted that this judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case the Director of Central Food Laboratory had found the sample sent to him to be unfit for analysis because of decomposition and because of that reason the accused could not have the benefit of the report of the Director which, if had been given, would have superceded the report of the Public : 28 : Analyst so the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the delay in launching the prosecution against the accused had resulted in denial of the benefit of Section 13(2) of the Act to him while in the present case despite the delay in the filing of the complaint in court the sample which was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory was found to be fit for analysis. So, learned APP contended, the acquittal of the accused of the present case by the trial Court relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was totally unjustified and not sustainable at all. However, in my view the acquittal of the respondents in the present case in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghisa Ram's case (supra) cannot be said to be unjustified because the crux of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that prosecution in these kind of cases should be launched promptly. In that case reference was also made to the opinion of an expert that if a food article, like curd, is kept in a refrigerator and a preservative is added to the sample the total period which may be available for making analysis of that sample without decomposition will be six months. In the present case, the sample of the paneer was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after more than seven months from the date when it was taken from the shop of the respondent no. 1 and there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for that delay. In these circumstances, if the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused's right under Section 13(2) of the Act had got frustrated it cannot : 29 : be said that this conclusion of the trial Court is unreasonable, wholly unjustified or perverse."
In State v. Anil Batra and others 2008(I) FAC 191 (Del), it was observed as follows:
" ........Learned Trial Court has relied upon one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975 (I) PFA cases 186. In that case the complaint was filed in Court after about seven months from the date of raid and taking of sample of milk product (curd) from the shop of the accused which was on 20/09/1961. The complaint was filed on 23/05/1962. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in these circumstances, the valuable right available to the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act of having the sample tested at Central Food Laboratory had stood denied to him. It was also observed that ordinarily it was possible for the prosecution to obtain the report of the Public Analyst and institute the prosecution within 17 days of the taking of the sample. Mr. Dudeja, learned APP had submitted that this judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case since in that case the Director of Central food Laboratory had found the sample sent to him to be unfit for analysis because of decomposition and because of that reason the accused could not have the benefit of the report of the Directory which, if had been given, would have superseded the report of the Public Analyst and so the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the delay in launching the prosecution against the accused had resulted in denial of the benefit of Section 13 (2) of the Act to him while in the present case despite the delay in the filing of the complaint in court the third counter part of the sample which was sent for analysis, as per the : 30 : CFL report, did not conform to the prescribed standard. So, learned APP contended, the acquittal of the accused of the present case by the trial Court relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was totally unjustified and not sustainable at all. However, in my view the acquittal of the respondents in the present case in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghisa Ram's case (Supra) cannot be said to be unjustified because the crux of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that prosecution in these kinds of cases should be launched promptly. In that case reference was also made to the opinion of an expert that if a food article, like curd, is kept in a refrigerator and a preservative is added to the sample the total period which may be available for making analysis of that sample without decomposition will be six months. In the present case, the third sample of the paneer was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after the expiry of more that in six months from the date when it was taken from the shop of the respondent no. 1 and there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for that delay. It is admitted by the prosecution that the sample was not kept in refrigerator but was kept in at room temperature till the time frim taking of the samples to sending it to CFL. PW5 FI, Rajesh Kumar in his cross examination has categorically stated that their department had not refrigerator in the office and the sample bottles were kept by them at ordinary room temperature in steel Almirah. I these circumstance, if he learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused's righty under section 13(2) of the Act had got frustrated it cannot be said that this conclusion of the trial Court is unreasonable."
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi and R.N: Gujral, : 31 : Asst. Municipal Prosecutor v. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273 (Del), it was held that if on account of delay or lapse on the part of the prosecution to institute a prosecution this valuable right of the accused is in any way impaired the question becomes of paramount importance for the purpose of determining if the defence was prejudiced on this account. If prejudice is caused to the accused on accused on account of the delay in the institution of the prosecution, as when the sample is rendered unfit for analysis in the meanwhile, or deterioration of the sample is proved to have occurred in the meanwhile, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution itself, in such a case prevents the accused from getting the final verdict to which he is entitled under Section 13 of the Act.
In The State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh 1992 (II) Recent Criminal Report (R.C.R.) 57 (P & H), it was observed as follows:
" Another aspect of the matter is that the sample was received by the Public Analyst on 2661985 and it was analysed on 2671985 as is evident from the report Ext. PD. This report was forwarded to Shri S. L. Lamba, Food Inspector on 281985 for launching prosecution against the accused. Complaint dated 1381985 was filed in the Court. A latter dated 148 : 32 : 1985 issued by the local Health Authority was received by the accused along with a copy of the Public Analyst's report wherein a direction was issued to the accused that if he was interested, he could get the second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory Ghaziabad and if he so desired, he could ask for the same within ten days of the receipt of the letter. On 20819856, the accused moved an application for producing the sample in the Court. The sample was produced in the Court on 1810 1985 and it was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory on 28101985. Thus the whole process consumed more than four months resulting in violation of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. This Section envisages prompt despatch of the sample within a period of five days from the receipt of such requisition from the Court. Where sample of food article like milk which is of perishable nature is kept for such a ling time of more than four months at room temperature (Particularly when sample is taken in the hot month of June) it is likely to deteriorate. The accused lost no time in availing of this statutory protection. Had moved the application on 2081985 for production of the sample in the Court but it was produced on 18101985. To add to the miseries of the accused it was analysed on 28101985 i.e., much more than four months from the taking of the sample. Under these circumstances, nonproduction of the sample in the Court for such a long time will certainly cause material prejudice to the accused and breach of the aforesaid mandatory Section of the Act which is fatal to the prosecution."
: 33 : In Ram Singh v. State of M.P. 2005 (IV) RCR (Criminal) 184 (MP), it was observed as follows:
" It is not in dispute that right to examine the remaining sample from Central Food Laboratory was valuable right of the applicant and this could not be destroyed by the prosecution and it is settled position of law that after 6 months preservative mixed with the milk has and lost its strength as deteriorated and the sample does not remain fit for analyses. In this situation when the complaint was initiated after more than 7 months when the remaining sample had become deteriorated and not fit for analysis and then aforesaid notice under Section 13(2) was given which was apparently after deterioration of the remaining sample so the applicant was deprived to examine the same from Central food Laboratory. So this cannot be said that the application under Section 13(2) of the Act was not moved by the applicant even after receiving the said notice Ex.P/16, therefore, he cannot get benefit of the said provision. For the sake of argument if such an application was moved instead that right could not be exhausted by the applicant in view of deterioration of the sample.
My aforesaid view is supported by the decided case of this Court in the matter of Shiv Dayal Saligrarn Tiwari v State of Madhya Pradesh,1977 MPLJ 169 in which it was held as under : "Held, that in any case by the time the accused appeared the sample would have deteriorated and that in the circumstances accused was : 34 : deprived of his right under Section 13(2) because of the inordinate delay in launching prosecution and he was entitled to acquittal. 1967 M.P.L.J. 640: AIR 1967 SC 970 and 1974 M.P.L.J. 241, Rel. AIR 1971 SC 1277 and AIR 1972 SC 1631, Dist. AIR 1951 Nag. 191, Ref. (Paras 6.7). Quoted from Placitum."
In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the applicant was deprived of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act and when the notice was sent till then the sample was already deteriorated and this aspect was neither examined nor considered by the Courts below and due to this apparent perversity the judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable in law."
In Gopi Ram v. The State of Haryana 1987 (I) FAC 153 (P & H), it was observed as follows:
" The petitioner was served on March 21, 1979 for, appearance in Court i e. exactly four months after the date on which, the sample was taken In the wake of, the above finding, it is only after March 21, 1979 that the, Petitioner could be expected to apply to the Court for sending the second sample for reanalysis. A period of four months having already elapsed, the sample of milk could not have remained fit for analysis. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the observation of Their . Lordship of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Ghisa Ram, 1975 (I) FAG 186 as followed by this Court in Resham Singh v. The State of PunJab, 1972 FAC 732 that even if a preservative is added in the sample of milk at room .temperature, the : 35 : percentage of fat and nonfatty, solids contents for purposes of analysis will be retained only for about four months. This period having already elapsed, it has been rightly argued that petitioner was deprived of his valuable right causing him serious, prejudice. "
In Makhan Singh v. State of U.P 1988 (II) FAC 62 (All), it was observed as follows:
" The contention of the revisionist is that an account of undue delay in filing the Complaint against him for the alleged adulteration and also on account of inordinate delay in sending the report of the Public Analyst to him be was 'deprived of his valuable right to move for obtaining the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act with regard to the sample of the milk taken. His contention is that as the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him as late as on 12 11980 that is to say about 8 months after taking of the sample it was obviously quite useless for him to move far obtaining the, report of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 of the Act, because by that time the sample must be decomposed and deteriorated and would not have remained fit for analysis his connection it is material to note that even the complaint against the , revisionist on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst seems to have been reveived in the Court on 10180. The complaint is dated 311279. The revisionist has relied on the cast of Municipal Corporation of .Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975(1) FAC 186 and Desh Raj v. State of U.P. 1985(I) FAC 135 in support of his contention. On account of inordinate delay the revisionist was virtually deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 of the Act to get the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It was of no use to move for obtaining the report of the Director , of Central Food Laboratory : 36 : as the sample kept in the office of Chief Medical Officer, must have decomposed and deteriorated making it unfit for analysis by the Director. Consequently, the conviction and sentences of the revisionist cannot be upheld in the revision. The revision has to be allowed."
In Sheikh Abdul v. State of Maharashtra 1986 (III) FAC 122 (Bom), it was observed as follows:
" ............The usual procedure was followed. One of the samples of the milk was sent to the Public Analyst and his Report was received by the Local Health Authority on 521980. The Authority, however, dragged its feet for the full period of 4 months further and did not institute prosecution before 761980 and thereafter on 961980 a notice was given by the local authority to the petitioner under section 13 of, the Food Adulteration Act informing him that he was at liberty to send to the Director of Central Food Laboratory another sample of milk. There is a dispute as to whether such a notice was received by the petitioner or not. But the lower Court has recorded a finding in that behalf and I find no reason to disagree with the same. The fact, however, remains that at the most the petitioner would have asked for the 2nd sample to be sent to the Director, by making an application in that behalf on or before 1961980. The sample would have been thereafter sent to the Director. This means that the sample of the milk would be reaching the Director long after the expiry of the period of 6 months. From the very nature of things, the milk could not remain undecomposed for that much of period, exceeding : 37 : even 6 months. There is no evidence in this case that the milk was kept in the cold storage. The only contention is that preservative was added. It has been held by our Court in 1982, Maharashtra Law Journal p.181 that even assuming that the preservative was added, the normal course is that the milk would get decomposed and it is futile to send the sample for analysis after that period. In these circumstances, the normal presumption would be that the milk must have been decomposed. If the Department wanted to prove that the milk had remained in tact even after such a longer period, it was for the prosecution to prove that fact by examining proper experts in that behalf."
In these two appeals the samples were taken on 26/6/1985 while as per the Certificate of Director CSL issued by learned Director the samples were received on 23/9/1986 and 24/9/1986 respectively, i.e., after about 15 months of taking samples. The prosecution evidence shows that Formaline was added to the samples. The Local Health Authority PW1 Shri Ghopal Singh has stated in the cross examination in Criminal Appeal No. 44/1989/1987 that he had not kept the sample bottles in refrigeration. He also admitted in the crossexamination that it was correct that the milk was a perishable commodity. He could not say offhand that Formaline can preserve milk only for a period of four months if : 38 : kept at room temperature. In Criminal Appeal No. 45/1999/1987 Local Health Authority Shri MR Grover has stated in the crossexamination that a sample of milk after a period of 15 months may not remain fit for analysis. He admitted it correct that the two counterparts of the sample had been kept by him in almiráh in room temperature. Therefore, in the light of the statements of the Local Health Authority in these two cases there being delay of about 15 months in sending the sample to the Director CFL of this perishable food item the cow milk, it can safely be taken that the counterpart of the sample being not kept in refrigeration and being kept in room temperature in the almiráh must have deteriorated in value to become unfit for analysis. Therefore, in the light of the above case law there was denial of the valuable statutory right under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act to the appellant in these two cases.
On behalf of the respondent State reliance is placed upon the authority T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, Tellicherry" AIR 1994 SC 1818, wherein it was observed as follows:
" In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, at page 362 it is stated is under:
: 39 : "Where, indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other manner, no doubt can be entertained as to the intention; that is to say, such a requirement would be imperative."
It is further stated on page 364 that:
"The general rule is, that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.
xx xx xx xx xx xx When a public duty is imposed and the statute requires that it shall be performed in a certain manner, or within a certain time, or under other specified conditions, such prescriptions may well be regarded as intended to be directory only in cases when injustice or inconvenience to others who have no control over those exercising the duty would result if such requirements were essential and imperative."
In Craies' Statute Law, Seventh edition at page 62 it is stated thus:
"When a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done and prescribes the formalities which are to attend its performance, those prescribed formalities which are essential to the validity of the thing when done are called imperative or absolute; but those which are not essential and may be : 40 : disregarded without invalidating the thing to be done, are called directory."
At page 250 it is further stated thus:
"The question whether the provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has frequently arisen in this country, but at has been said that no general rule can be laid down and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at........ When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in respect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable not affecting the validating of acts done."
In Dattatraya v. State of Bombay , AIR 1952 SC 181 it was held as under (at p. 185. of AIR):
"Generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice of the courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of : 41 : them not affecting the validity of the acts done."
In Rule 7(3) no doubt the expression "shall" is used but it must be borne in mind that the Rule deals with stages prior to launching the prosecution and it is also clear that by the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the case is not yet instituted in the court and it is only on the basis of this report of the Public Analyst that the concerned authority has to take a decision whether to institute a prosecution or not. There is no time limit prescribed within which the prosecution has to be instituted and when there is no such limit prescribed then there is no valid reason for holding the period of 45 days as mandatory. Of course that does not mean that the Public Analyst can ignore the time limit prescribed under the Rules. He must in all cases try to comply with the time limit. But if there is some delay, in a given case, there is no, reason to hold that the very report is void and on that basis to hold that even prosecution cannot be launched. may be, in a given case, if there is inordinate delay, the court may not attach any value to the report but merely because the time limit is prescribed, it cannot be said that even a slight delay would render the report void or inadmissible in law. In this context it must be noted that Rule 7(3) is only a procedural provision meant to speed up the process of investigation on the basis of which the prosecution has to be launched. No doubt, subsec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act confers valuable right on the accused under which provision the accused can make an : 42 : application to the court within a period of 10 days from the receipt of copy of the report of Public Analyst to get the samples of food analysed in the Central Food Laboratory and in case the sample is found by the said Central Food Laboratory unfit for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time or for any other reason attributable to the lapses on the side of prosecution, that valuable right would stand denied. This would constitute prejudice to the accused entitling him to acquittal but mere delay As such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case even in cases where the sample continues to remain fit for analysis in spite of the delay because the accused is in no way prejudiced on the merits of the case in respect of such delay. Therefore it must be shown that the delay has led to the denial of right conferred u/ S. 13(2) and that depends on the facts of each case and violation of the time limit given in subrule (3) of Rule 7 by itself cannot be a ground for the prosecution case being thrown out."
In TV Usman 's case (supra) the food item was Pan supari and not milk. Further, the observations in this case also show that if on account of deterioration in value of the sample it becomes unfit for analysis by CFL leading to denial of valuable right under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act it would cause prejudice to the accused. Therefore, TV Usman's case (supra) does not help the : 43 : respondent State and rather it helps the cause of the appellant.
The defence taken by the appellant in these two cases is that he was not owner of the milk in question and had taken lift on the truck and was falsely implicated in this case and he has produced one witness for this purpose also but going through the evidence of the appellant and his plea under section 313 CrPC I. concur with the finding of the learned trial court by which it has discredited the defence of the appellant. But from the case of prosecution in these two cases and appeals there is enough material to show that the proper representative sample was not taken by the concerned food inspectors in these two cases and the appellant was denied his valuable right under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act due to the discussion made above so the appellant is entitled to at least benefit of doubt in both the cases. RESULT OF APPEAL:
In view of discussion both the appeals are allowed.
The judgements of conviction passed by the learned trial court in both cases are setaside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 7/16 of the PFA Act in both these cases.
: 44 : The true copy of the judgement be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 45/1999/1987 which shall also be disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds furnished in the two appeals are cancelled. The trial court records be returned alongwith the copy of this judgment.
The judgment be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The appeal filed be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open
court on 01.07.08 ( S K Sarvaria )
Additional Sessions Judge
Patiala House Court
: 45 :
: 46 :