Food Inspector vs Surender Pal

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.�For the reasons stated therein, the delay in re-filing the criminal leave petition is condoned. The application is allowed.

For the reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the criminal leave petition is condoned.

The application is allowed.

This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 6th September 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II (''ACMM''), New Delhi in CC No. 288 of 2005, acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (''PFA Act'').

The Food Inspector purchased 1500 ml. of ''cow milk'' from the Respondent on 25th August 2005. One counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst (''PA'') who opined that the sample does not conform to the standards because milk solids not fat is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5%. However, the complaint was filed not till 5th December 2005.

During the course of trial, a second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (''CFL'') at Pune for testing, at the instance of the accused. The CFL, by a certificate dated 13th February 2000, opined that sample does not conform to standards of cow''s milk as per PFA Rules.

In the impugned judgment, the trial Court found that in the CFL report the fat content was 4.56% which was more than the prescribed limit of 3.5%. Further while the ''milk solid not fat'' as tested by the PA was 6.58%, it was 7.53% in the report of the CFL which was only marginally (0.97%) less than the minimum requirement of 8.5%. As a result the total solids were found to be 12.09%, [i.e., milk fat 4.56% plus milk solids not fat 7.53%] which was more than the satisfying standard of 12%. The benefit of doubt was granted to the Respondent since it was opined that the variation in the reports might have occurred as a result of the samples not being properly homogenized.

In the considered view of the Court, there was no error committed by the trial Court in the above facts and circumstances. No grounds are made out for grant of leave to appeal.

Before closing, the Court would like to emphasise that since the product in question was cow''s milk, and the Department does not appear to have adequate equipment for preserving samples, the complaint should not have filed later than one week after the report of the PA. In fact, in all cases where the product in question is a perishable commodity with a short shelf-life, if the complaints are not filed within a week of the report of the PA, it will invariably result in variations in subsequent test reports, beyond the permissible limits. If the Department is serious about diligently perusing such cases, it should ensure that the above time schedule is adhered to.

A certified copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to be further communicated to the concerned department for taking appropriate action to ensure that there is no lapse in pursuing such complaints. The trial Court record be sent back forthwith.