Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, urges the following grounds to seek leave to appeal against the judgement:

3.1. Both the Food Analyst and the Referral Food Laboratory conclusively reported the sample to be unsafe (insect-infested and fungus-contaminated) and sub-standard (damaged units and excessive acidity). The Trial Court erred in discarding concurrent scientific findings. 3.2. The Trial Court's reasoning that infestation and rancidity may have developed naturally due to monsoon and lapse of time is speculative. The Food Analyst specifically recorded that the seals were intact, ruling out post- sampling contamination.
11. To bring out the case of food article being unsafe the prosecution is relying upon the report of Director, RFL dated 17.10.2013 who had reported that the sample of Kaju Pieces collected/lifted by the Food Safety Officer on 07.08.2013 was unsafe because it contained infested with insects dead and living and the sample was not free from mustiy odour and rancidity and the damage/discoloured units exceeded the maximum prescribed limit and the acidity of the extracted fat as oleic acid exceeded the maximum prescribed limit. However, I do not agree with the conclusions/report of the Director, RFL as only on account of presence of live and dead insects the sample of Kaju Pieces cannot be concluded to be "insect infested" as the sample was collected during Monsoon season and it is a natural phenomena that due to contact with air and moisture the sample commodity may have been infested with insects. Reliance is placed on the judgment in New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Chaman Lal and the State (1991) 1 SCC 166.

12. With respect to the charge that the sample commodity was unsafe as they discoloured/damage units and total extracted fat increasing the prescribed limit, it is seen that in the present case the sample proceedings were conducted on 07.08.2013 and the sample was sent to RFL, Mysore on 26.09.13. The report of the Director, RFL was received on dated 23.10.2013 and is dated 17.10.2013. Therefore, it is clear that the sample commodity which is changes and natural phenomenas was sent for analysis to RFL, Mysore after a period of approximately 40 days for analysis. Therefore, the possibility of rancidity being developed during this period alongwith the extracted fact being increased beyond the permissible limits which cannot be denied. Furthermore, the damaged discoloured units being beyond the prescribed limits is also a natural phenomena due to oxidation of the sample commodity as the second counterpart sample commodity was sent after 40 days of the sample being collected leading to natural changes in the sample commodity beyond the control.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:24:06 account of the time gap between the collection of the sample and its analysis by the Referral Food Laboratory. The sample was drawn on 07 th August, 2013 and the counterpart was forwarded to the RFL only on 26 th September, 2013. The Trial Court held that, during this intervening period, natural changes could have occurred in the sample, particularly given that the sample was collected during the monsoon season. The Trial Court also noted in the cross-examination PW-2 and PW-3 admitted that, at the time of sampling, no live or dead insects were visible in the kaju pieces. Although, it is correct that insect infestation may not always be visible to the naked eye, the fact remains that the sample, when examined by the RFL, contained visible live and dead insects, insect fragments, and exhibited mustiness and rancidity. This contrast suggests that some degree of deterioration which occurred over the passage of time.