Delhi Administration vs Avinash Kumar Arora & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1963 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1963 Del
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2016

Delhi High Court

Delhi Administration vs Avinash Kumar Arora & Ors. on 11 March, 2016

#2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Judgment delivered on: 11th March, 2016

+      CRL.L.P. 231/2015


DELHI ADMINISTRATION                                        ..... Petitioner

                             Versus

AVINASH KUMAR ARORA & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Ms. Radhika Kolluru, 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 23.07.2009 passed by Shri S.K. Malhotra, Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No. 134/93 whereby the

respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Shri Virender Singh

purchased a sample of 'pasteurized full cream milk' from the respondent No. 1,

Mr. Avinash Kumar Arora S/o Shri B.K. Arora at M/s Chawla Store, T-33,

Janta Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 18.02.1993 at about 08.45 a.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 No. 1'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 and milk

solids not fat were less than the prescribed minimum limit of 6.0% and 9.0%

respectively, when judged on the basis of buffalo milk. On 13.8.1993, the

respondents moved an application u/s 13(2) PFA Act, and a second counterpart

of the sample was examined by the Director, CFL, Mysore. As per the report of

the Director, CFL, the sample did not conform to the standard for buffalo milk

as the milk fat content was below the specified limit of 6%. However, as per

the Director, CFL, the 'milk solids not fat' were in accordance with the

standards prescribed.

3. The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(a)(m) punishable under

Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and Rules, to which he

pleaded not guilty.

4. The solitary 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.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that since the

CFL report was conclusive on all aspects, there was no need for the trial Court

to have looked at the PA report in this behalf.

6. The Trial Court relied upon the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs.

State, 2005 (2) FAC 219, Delhi High Court, 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."

7. 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:-

"18. 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 03.03.93 wherein the opinion given by the Public Analyst was that the sample does not conform to the standard and the result of the Public Analyst was as follows:-

                    Milk fat                        - 5.8%

                    Milk solids not fat             - 8.6%

19. The second counterpart of the same sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore dated 15.10.93, the result of analysis of second counterpart of the sample commodity is as follows:-

                    Milk fat                        - 5.2%

                    Milk solids not fat             - 9.4%

20. The difference of analysis in respect of milk fat and milk solids not fat in respect of sample of Pasteurized Full Cream Milk by the report of two analysts are not within acceptable range of .3%.

Complainant has failed to show any explanation in respect of variation of more than .3% in the analytic data of the counterpart of the same sample analysed by two Analysts. Thereby relying upon Kashi Nath versus State (supra), I am of the considered view that the sample was not representative due to which divergent reports were given by two experts in respect of counterpart of the same sample.

21. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the sample commodity was representative in nature. Therefore, all accused stand acquitted of the charge. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties discharged. File be consigned to the record room."

8. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath (supra) 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

in the percentage of 'milk fats' and 'solids not fat' value between the report of

the PA and the Director CFL. The State has not satisfactorily explained the said

variance.

9. 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.

10. I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court

passed based on the discussion extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the