Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Rajeev Bhatia & Ors. on 20 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20.03.2015
CRL.L.P.161/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
RAJEEV BHATIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
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 03.04.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CC No.98/2003 under
Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the
respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
2. To briefly encapsulate the facts, a sample of Vanaspati was duly lifted
from the respondent/vendor Sh. Rajeev Bhatia on 09.08.2002 by the Food
Inspector Sh. Ranjit Singh. Upon analysis by the Public Analyst (PA) a report
dated 28.08.2002 found the said sample to be not conforming to the standards
required. Upon request of the respondent the second counterpart was sent to
CFL which was also found non-conforming to the standards. By way of the
impugned order the trial court has acquitted the accused persons on the ground
that there are variations between PA and CFL reports.In the PA report free fatty
acids were found 0.33% which was more than prescribed minimum limit of
0.25%. Baudouin test was found negative although it could have been positive.
However, in CFL report, free fatty acids were found 0.34%, melting point was
found 44oC and rancidity and Baudouin Test was found positive. The trial court
held that either the sampling procedure was wrong or there was a lacuna at
some stage in the analysis thereof or the time gap between the analysis of the
two counterparts had a bearing thereupon so as to cause certain (physical and
the chemical) changes therein to the prejudice of the accused persons.
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:-
"........Thus, the respective Reports given by the Public
Analyst and the Director CFL, are not only contradictory
of each other but, are also self-defeating, as the
contradiction pertains to the very material allegation i.e.
the very accusation and basis of the Complaint in
question. Furthermore, in the PA Report, the Vanaspati
has been shown „free from rancidity‟ whereas, in the
Report of the Director CFL, it was found to be „rancid‟.
The Report of PA bears the date as 28.08.2002 whereas,
the Certificate of the Director CFL, is dated 02.05.2003.
It is thus clear that by the time the second counterpart
stood analysed there at CFL, certain changes had taken
place in Vanaspati in question to the prejudice of the
accused persons. it is also worth mentioning that both
these Experts vide their respective Reports do differ from
each other regarding the test to adjudge the melting point
of the commodity in question. PA had detected the
melting point of the Vanaspati to be 40.8o C. (permissible
range 31o C to 41o C.) whereas, the Director CFL,
adjudged the same to be 44o C. It is thus, clear that either
the sampling procedure was wrong or there was some
sort of lacuna at some stage in the analysis thereof or the
time gap between the analysis of the two counterparts
had had a bearing thereupon so as to cause certain
(physical or chemical) changes therein to the prejudice of
the accused persons. In this context, it is also worth
mentioning that the document Ex. PW1/B makes it
crystal clear that the commodity in question was
consumable „best before 6 months from the date of its
packing/manufacturing‟ i.e. „August, 2002. The sample
in question had been lifted as on 09.08.2002 i.e. in the
very month of its manufacturing and thus, was
consumable best before „Jan/Feb 2003‟. However, the
analysis thereof, there at CFL Pune, could only be
conducted in May, 2003 that too without any sort of
latches on the part of the accused persons."
4. The argument of the State that the CFL report is conclusive and there was
no need for the trial court to have considered the PA report, holds no water as
there are substantial variations in the PA report and the CFL report. The PA
report has delineated that the subject Vanaspati was free from rancidity.
However, in the CFL report it was found to be „rancid‟. The reports further
differ with regard to the melting point of the subject Vanaspati which has been
detected in the PA report to be 40.8o C whereas the same has been adjudged to be
44o C in the CFL report.
5. 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.
6. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is
dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 20, 2015
mk
