Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Amar Chand on 19 May, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.05.2015
CRL.L.P.183/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
AMAR CHAND ..... 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 09.10.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.106/2000 whereby the respondent has been
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Mr. R.P.Singh purchased
a sample of Dal Masoor from the respondent on 14.03.2000 at about 07.30 p.m.
Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts; each
bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed
according to the PFA Act and Rules. The respondent‟s signature was 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 that
the sample was adulterated as it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter
viz. Sunset Yellow FCF. The respondent was charged under Section
2(ia)(a)(b)(j) & (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 sample was not representative.
4. 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:-
"11. Here it be seen that in the PA‟s Report, the
sample in question was declared as adulterated on
account of the presence of one synthetic coloring
matter namely „Sunset Yellow FCF‟. However, the
Director CFL found the sample in question adulterated
due to the presence of two colours namely Sunset
Yellow FCF & Tartrazine. The PA report is silent
about the presence of Mineral Oil but the Director CFL
found the same to be present in his report. Further in
PA‟s Report Foreign matter organic was found to the
tune of 0.003% whereas, as pr the opinion of Director
CFL it was absent in the sample counterpart so sent for
analysis to him. Similarly, in first report i.e. PA‟s
Report, Aflatoxin B1was not detected whereas,
interestingly the Director CFL found it to the tune of
15.0 which is totally contradictory to the findings of
PA. Moreover there is variation in respect of presence
of Moisture between the Report of PA & CFL as in the
PA‟s Report the Moisture was adjudged to the tune of
11.17% and in the CFL Report it was adjudged to the
tune of 13.1% (although they are well within the
parameter of Appendix A. 18.06.09). Thus, both the
reports are so contradictory, that cannot be made basis
for holding the accused guilty."
5. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs. State, 2005 (2)
FAC 219, Delhi High 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 water as the perusal of the trial court judgment
shows substantial variance in the PA report and CFL report.
6. 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.
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
MAY 19, 2015
mk
