Chandu Lal vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed by Chandu Lal (hereinafter described as `the petitioner''). The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and the resultant proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The relevant facts alleged are that the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner by filing a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondent''s case was that on 30.11.1981 Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner at Rewari. The petitioner was found in possession of 8 to 9 kilogram of wheat atta (flour) for public sale. Atta was purchased for Rs. 1.45. It was divided into three equal parts. The bottles were labelled and sealed. Thumb impressions of the petitioner were obtained in the manner that both paper slip and the wrapper of the sample carried a part of his thumb impression. One representative sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It was reported that the sample contained fifteen living meal worms. On these broad facts, after obtaining the necessary sanction complaint against the petitioner had been filed.

The petitioner''s contention is that the complaint was tried by the Judicial Magistrate as a warrant case. The evidence before charge was recorded on 15.11.1983. Charge was framed on 1.5.1984. On 1.5.1984 it was brought to the notice of the trial court that food cases could not be tried by a court not having summary powers. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed to prepare the list of food cases including the present case and it was sent to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. It is contended that 8 years expired before this happened and change of procedure at trial was illegal. Furthermore it is alleged that living meal worms were found which were not insects. Therefore, it could not be said that the representative sample was adulterated. The same were not stated to be unfit for human consumption. On these facts quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings has been prayed.

Annexure P2 is the report of the Public Analyst. After recording that seals on the representative samples were found to be in order, the Public Analyst found :

"1. Physical Examination Characteristic of Atta and fifteen living meal worms present.

Moisture 9.63%

Gluten on dry Wt. basis 7.3%

Total ash 1.46%

Ash insoluble in dil HCl 0.08%

Alcoholic acidity as H2 SO 4 on dry wt. basis 0.10%

and am of the opinion that the sample contains fifteen living meal worms."

It is apparent from the report of the Public Analyst that he only detected fifteen living meal worms. Taking advantage of this fact it was urged that this report will not prove that the wheatatta was adulterated. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case State of Haryana v. Om Parkash, 1992 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 311. In the cited case a sample of Zeera was taken. One weevil and 16 living meal worms were found. The distinction between the living worms and insects was noticed and it was held that it could not be termed to be adulterated. In paragraph 4 the Court held :

"It has authoritatively been held in State v. Puran Mal that it is not possible to hold that worm and an insect are the same. In M/s Narkeklange Roller Flour Mills and another v. The Corporation of Calcutta, the difference between insect and worm was noted as under :

"Held that the word "insect" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "small invertebrate segmented animal having head, thorax, abdomen and three pairs of thoracic wings". The word "worm" in the same dictionary is defined as "kinds of invertebrate limbless or apparently limbless creeping animal, such as are segmented in rings or are parasite in the intestines or tissues". There is, therefore, a good deal of difference between worm and insects and a sample of food becomes adulterated only when it is insectinfested. In the present sample, however, worms were found to be present and that in our view, does not satisfy the requirements of the definition of adulterated under section 2 of the Act."

Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above rulings, the presence of worms in itself does not make the sample adulterated. In the instant case, the presence of 16 living meal worms does not make the sample of zeera insect infested. Since the report of the Public Analyst does not state that the zeera was unfit for human consumption, therefore, the presence of worms in the zeera taken from the possession of accused does not prove that the sample was adulterated."

The Supreme Court also considered the same question in the case Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1720. Herein a sample of Suji was taken. It contained one living weevil and eight living meal worms. The Court upheld the acquittal and held that Public Analyst had not found that it was insectinfested or unfit for human consumption. In paragraph 4 the findings returned were :

"As would be seen from the report of the Public Analyst, he has not opined that the sample of Suji was either `insectinfested'' or that it was unfit for human consumption on account of presence of meal worms in that or that it was otherwise fit for human consumption. In the absence of such an opinion, it is not possible for us to upset the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Magistrate or find fault with the order of acquittal. In taking this view we are fortified by a judgment of this Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Puran Mal, where under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined (SCC p. 596, para 13):

"Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worminfested or insectinfested or that on account of the presence of the meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act."

In the present case in hand also the finding of the Public Analyst does not indicate that sample was insectinfested or was unfit for human consumption. Consequently, it cannot be held that the wheatatta was adulterated.

Another important fact in the present case which cannot be lost sight of is that sample had been taken in the year 1981. The trial proceeded as a warrant case. After eight years of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate realised the mistake that he had conducted the trial with the procedure of a warrant case. Thereupon feeling that he could not try the complaint pertaining to the offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it was sent to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. On this day almost 16 years have expired. Remitting the case to the trial court for trial after such a long span would be patently against the interest of justice particularly when the trial has yet to begin. It is not one of those cases where the petitioner himself had delayed the trial or that there are other cogent reasons which may permit the court not to quash the proceedings. It will be, therefore, in the fitness of things that agony of the petitioner is not prolonged.

Taking note of these facts and circumstances, the complaint and the subsequent proceedings in question are quashed.