Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Ram Gopal on 20 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20.03.2015
CRL.L.P.163/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
RAM GOPAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Isha Khanna, APP
For the Respondents : 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 29.03.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CC No.118/2002 under
Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the
respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
2. To briefly encapsulate the facts, a sample of Boondi Laddo was duly
lifted from the respondent/vendor Sh. Ram Gopal on 30.03.2002 by the Food
Inspector Sh. M.K.Gupta. Upon analysis by Public Analyst (PA) a report dated
09.04.2002 found the said sample to be adulterated because total dye content of
the synthetic colour used exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm.
Upon request of the respondent the second counterpart was sent to CFL which
was also found adulterated. By way of the impugned order, the trial court has
acquitted the respondent on the ground that there is variation between the PA
report and the CFL report as in the PA report the synthetic colour was found
209.75 ppm and in the CFL report it was found to be 322.2 ppm, which is not a
reasonable variation. It appeared to the trial court that the variation in the two
reports was either due to the defective sampling procedure or a result of delayed
analysis in respect of the second counterpart.
3. The solitary submission on behalf of the State is that since the CFL report
was conclusive on the aspect, there was no need for the trial court to have
looked at the PA report in this behalf. Further, it has also been suggested that
the delay in sending the sample for testing was not on account of the petitioner.
In this behalf the trial court has observed as follows:-
"12.Firstly, taking the ground of alleged delay, the
sample proceedings had taken place as on 30.03.2002
whereas, the Complaint in question was filed on
12.11.2002 i.e. almost after a period of 7½ months.
Perusal of the case file reveals that nothing sort of
investigation was carried out after 22.04.2002 meaning
thereby that the investigations, if any, stood concluded
and completed by that time. Moreover, the prosecution
was to be launched (and was in fact launched) against
one and the only accused i.e. accused namely Shri Ram
Gopal. In that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to satisfactorily explain and justify as to why
the proceedings were not initiated immediately after the
conclusion of the investigation. However, neither any
such explanation does appear in the Complain in
question, nor any sort of justification was put forth either
during the course of evidence, or otherwise. The
prosecution story gets further dented in this regard by a
mere perusal of the order of according Consent U/s 20 of
PFA Act, by the Director PFA. It is an undated order
reflecting nowhere and in no way as to when the case file
was put before the worthy Director PFA, how much time
he took to peruse the same, on which date and in which
month he accorded the requisite Consent etc. etc. This
becomes even more important when the Complaint dated
12.11.2002 is perused so as to ascertain these aspects.
Even the Complaint is also entirely silent in this regard.
In Para - 5 thereof, a passing reference appears to the
effect that:-
„after conclusion of the investigation entire
case file including the statutory documents,
PA report and the FI's Report were sent to
the Director PFA, who accorded Consent U/s
20 of the PFA Act for instituting the case'
If, this assertion (as appearing in Para - 5 of the
Complaint and as reproduced herein above); is to be
believed, the case file might have been submitted to the
Director PFA, somewhere in the last week of April,
2002, or in the beginning of May, 2002. In that
eventuality, Consent might have been granted by the end
of May, 2002 or so. However, despite that the Complaint
against the accused herein, could only be filed by
12.11.2002 and not prior thereto, for the reasons best
known to the PFA Officials in general and the
Complainant FI in particular. Even if it is assumed that
the requisite Consent was granted just a few days prior to
the filing of the Complaint in question, it remains
entirely unexplained as to how and why all this exercise
was not completed within a reasonable span of time,
more particularly when as per the prosecution‟s own
version (as reflected in the list of documents, annexed
with the Complaint), the investigation had been
completed by 22.04.2002.
13. Further, in respect of first counterpart, the color in
question was found present in the given food article to
the extent of „209.75 ppm‟ whereas, in respect of the
second counterpart of the same sample, it was detected to
be to the tune of „322.2 ppm‟. As a matter of fact, there is
a time gap of almost 10 months between the analysis of
the respective sample counterparts. The „delay‟ is mostly
attributable to the prosecution as has already been
discussed herein above. The variation in the two Reports
i.e. the Report of the PA and the Director CFL, is to the
extent of „112.45 ppm‟ in respect of color concentration
in the sample of Boondi ke Laddoo, is in no way a
reasonable variation. Moreover, none of the prosecution
witnesses has put forth any plausible reason for variation
to such an extent. It reasonably appears that either it was
due to the defective sampling procedure or might be the
result of delayed analysis in respect of the second
counterpart. In both these eventualities, the fault lies with
the prosecution only. The accused thus, deserves to be
acquitted and is hereby acquitted of the charges leveled
against him."
4. The argument made on behalf of the State that the CFL report is
conclusive and there was no need for trial court to have considered the PA
report holds no water as there is a substantial variation in the PA report and the
CFL report.
5. The PA report states that the total dye content of the synthetic colour used
in the given sample was 209.75ppm. However, in the CFL report it was detected
to the tune of 322.2ppm. The variation in the two reports is to the extent of
112.45ppm, which is not a reasonable variation. Moreover, none of the
prosecution witnesses have put forth any valid reason for the said variation.
6. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court on the basis of
discussion extracted hereinabove. Insofar as the question of delay is concerned
the same cannot be also laid at the door of the respondents so as to enure to their
prejudice.
7. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is
dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 20, 2015
mk
