Hoshiar Singh vs Govt. Food Inspector, Bhiwani and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—Challenge is to the judgment dated 04.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani dated 05.12.2007, was dismissed. The petitioner stands convicted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A complaint was made by the Government Food Inspector, Bhiwani alleging that on 31.07.2002 when he was present at Kont Road, Bhiwani for the purpose of sampling raid, Hoshiar Singh came there having two iron drums containing 10 liters of cow milk. The Food Inspector demanded a sample of cow milk by giving him notice in writing on form VI, prescribed under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereafter, 750 mls cow milk was purchased and mixing all the contents properly for analysis, the cow milks was divided into three equal parts, bottled in three dry clear empty bottles. After preservative in each bottle, they were sealed with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper moulded properly and pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No. BHW-DH-FI-I/FI-2-189 and signature of Local Health Authority, Bhiwani was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signature of Hoshiar Singh was obtained on paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through Railway parcel. Two other sealed bottles of sample were also deposited with the Local Health Authority on 01.08.2002 vide receipt No. GFL/21/02. Copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post vide receipt No. 839 dated 01.08.2002. Thereafter, after institution of the complaint, Hoshiar Singh appeared in the Court. After pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charged u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Government Food Inspector, R.K. Yadav appeared as PW-1, Dr. N.K. Garg as PW3 have deposed that on 31.07.2002, the bottle samples were taken as per the complaint and they were sealed in accordance with the rules and as per the report from the Public Analyst, Haryana, the same were found adulterated, which reads as under:

Milk Fat: 4.0%

Milk Solids not fat: 7.5%

Test for the present of sugar and Starch: Negative

Test for the presence of added urea: Negative

Test for the presence of foreign vegetable fact: Negative

Test for the presence of Neutralisers: Negative

The notice dated 13.01.2003 Ex. PW2/A u/s 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner by registered post vide receipt No. Ex. PW2/B dated 13.01.2003. Pursuant to the receipt of the report of Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, the complaint was registered on 04.01.2003. The fact that the appellant did not apply for the second sample to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory at Pune.

In view of the fact that the appellant had not applied for the second sample, which could be sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory at Pune, could be only that the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh was correct and since as per that report, the sample contains milk solids at 7.5% against the minimum specified limit of 8.5%. Therefore, the contents of the milk was lower than the specified standard limit.

As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone 01 month and 05 days as on 08.12.2009. The sample was taken on 31.07.2002 and the petitioner is facing criminal trial for the last 11 years. It is not the case of the respondent also that the samples of cow milk was taken from the petitioner and was marginally adulterated. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has not committed a mistake again in this regard. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.