Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Dharmender Singh on 24 April, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.04.2015
CRL.L.P.259/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
DHARMENDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Isha Khanna, APP
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned
order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.19/04 whereby the respondent has been
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Sunil Kumar Gupta
purchased a sample of Cow's Milk from the respondent on 07.08.2003 at about
7.00 p.m. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal
parts and they were put in three separate clean and dry bottles. 40 drops of
formalin were added in each sample bottle and each bottle was separately
packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The
respondent's signatures were also obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of
the sample bottles. One counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst
in intact condition and two counter parts were deposited with the LHA. Upon
analysis it was found by the PA that the sample did not conform to standard
because milk solids not fat were less than prescribed minimum limit of 8.5%.
The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of PFA Act punishable
under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and Rules to which
he pleaded not guilty.
3. The sole contention that was raised before the Trial Court was whether
the sample taken was representative or not. It was pointed out on behalf of the
respondent that there was vast variation between the report of PA and the
Director, CFL which establishes that the said sample was not representative.
4. The Trial Court relied upon the ratio laid down in the following decisions
and acquitted the respondent on the ground that prosecution had failed to
establish that the sample was representative.
(i) M.C.D. vs. Jawahar Lal, 1980 (2) F.A.C. 145 Delhi
(ii) M.C.D. & Ors. vs. Om Prakash, 1970 (2) Crl.L.J.1047
(iii) Isham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.)
(P&H)
(iv) Delhi Administration vs. Sat Sarup Sharma, Crl.Apl.
No.869/1985, decided on 25.11.1993
5. It was observed by the Trial Court in this behalf as follows:-
"13. In the given context, the 'milk fat' as
adjudged by both the Experts were found to be
more than the minimum required thereof. The
Experts found the 'milk fat' contents in the
respective sample counterparts, to the extent of
'4.6 per cent (CFL) and '5.0 per cent' (PA), as
against the minimum requirement of '3.5 per cent'.
Similarly, the 'total solids' in the Cow's Milk
have been shown to the tune of '12.30%' in the
Certificate dated 05.14.2004, which depiction is
also higher the minimum requirement of (3.5 per
cent - milk fat + 8.5 per cent - snf) '12 per cent'."
6. In view of the decisions cited by the trial court the arguments made on
behalf of the State by the learned APP that the trial court should have only
considered the CFL report and not the PA report holds no ground as the perusal
of the trial court judgment delineates substantial variance between the report
of the PA and the Director CFL. The State has not satisfactorily explained the
said variance.
7. I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court
passed based on the discussion extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the
present petition seeking leave to appeal is without merit and the same is
dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
APRIL 24, 2015
dn
