Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Bablu Singh on 24 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.03.2015
CRL.L.P.140/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
versus
BABLU SINGH ..... 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
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned
order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.47/2001 whereby the respondent has been
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
2. The facts herein briefly are that Food Inspector O.P.S. Ahlawat purchased
a sample of Paneer from the respondent on 16.06.05 at about 4:00 p.m. The said
sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Sh. R.K. Sharma,
SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal
parts by putting them in three separate clean and dry bottles. 20 drops of
formalin were added in each of the sample bottle and they were 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 fat of dried matter was less than the prescribed minimum limit of
50%. 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 solitary question 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 sample was not representative
4. The Trial Court relied upon the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath v.
State, 2005 (2) FAC 219, wherein it was held as follows:-
"............. To this extent, the argument raised by Mr.
Sharma that once the certificate of the Director, CFL is
obtained, then that is final and conclusive and the
Public Analyst's report cannot be looked into at all for
any purpose whatsoever, is not quite tenable. If the
variation in the two reports is substantial enough, then
the Public Analyst's report can certainly be looked into
to establish this variation so as to support the
contention of the petitioner that the sample was not
representative. As indicated above, the Director, CFL
who was examined as CW-1 in cross-examination, has
clearly stated that if the content of common salt as
quantified by the two experts would have a variation of
more than- Y.3% then the samples would not be
representative. This is an opinion of an expert and one
has to go by it. In the facts of the present case, we find
that the variation, as indicated above, is more
thanY.3%. Therefore, on the facts of the present case,
it can be said that 7 the variation is beyond the
acceptable range and would clearly imply that the
samples were not representative. In view of this finding
and in the background of the law which is well settled,
no conviction can be sustained."
5. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision of this court in Kanshi Nath
(supra), the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to
establish that the sample was representative. It was observed by the Trial Court
in this behalf as follows:-
"27. In view of above judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court, I find no force in the contention of the Ld.
SPP that the report of the Public Analyst and the
Director, CFL cannot be looked into to find whether the
sample was representative or not. In the present case, as
per report of the Public Analyst dated 04.07.05 wherein
the opinion given by the Public Analyst, Delhi was that
the sample does not conform to the standard and the
result of the Public Analyst was as follows:-
Milk fat on dry weight basis - 43.04%
Moisture -57.75%
28. The second counterpart of the same sample was
analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune
dated 14.12.05 , the result of analysis of second
counterpart of the sample commodity is as follows:-
Milk fat on dry weight basis - 39.59%
Moisture - 56.05%
29. The difference of analysis in respect of fat content on
dry weight matter in respect of sample of Paneer by the
report of two analysts is not within acceptable range of
0.3%. No explanation has come on record in respect of
variation of 3.45% in milk fat content in the counterpart
of same sample. Thereby relying upon Kanshi Nath
versus State (supra), I am of the considered view that
the sample was not representative."
6. The only argument made on behalf of the State by the Ld. APP that the
trial court should have only considered the CFL report and not the PA report has
been displaced by the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath (supra) as the
variation in the milk fat in dry sample in the PA report and CFL report is not
within the acceptable range of 0.3%. Further, on perusal of the trial court
judgment delineates that a substantial lacuna is present in the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay in filling the
complaint (14.10.2005) after 4 months from the date of receiving the report of
the PA (04.07.2005).
7. Consequently, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner
herein has failed to prove that the sample was homogenized and representative
and resultantly acquitted the respondent.
8. 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
MARCH 24, 2015
mk
