State (Delhi Admn.) vs Khem Raj
2007 Latest Caselaw 248 Del

Citation : 2007 Latest Caselaw 248 Del
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2007

Delhi High Court

State (Delhi Admn.) vs Khem Raj on 7 February, 2007

Author: S N Dhingra

Bench: S N Dhingra

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of judgment dated 11.2.1997 of Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 16, Sub clause I and Section 7 of the PFA Act.

2. The basic reason for allowing the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is non-use of plunger for homogenising milk at the time of taking milk sample by the Food Inspector. The learned Session Judge observed that there was doubt on the version of the prosecution that plunger was in fact used while taking sample.

3. 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.

4. 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 thoroughly homogenised. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondent.

5. I find no infirmity in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal is hereby dismissed.