Krishan Chand vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 25, 1984, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accusedpetitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate Panipat, on August 6, 1982 in Criminal Case No. 203/3 of 1981. The accusedpetitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On 16th June, 1978, S.L. Anand Government Food Inspector, Panipat, accompanied by Dr. C.P. Singh and Sardari Lal, was present near the Model Town, Panipat. The Food Inspector purchased sample of milk from the petitioner for analysis and when one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, he found the same to be adulterated. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

The only point strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no compliance by the Food Inspector with the mandatory provision contained in Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short, the Rules). Rule 18 of the Rules provides a safeguard to the accused against tempering of the sample taken from him during the course of its transmission to the Public Analyst. It lays down that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen of the seal used to seal the packet shall by sent to the Public Analyst separately either by registered post or delivered to him or to person authorised by him. According to the learned counsel, this rule must be complied with in order to ensure that the Public Analyst analysed the same sample which was taken by the Food Inspector from the accused.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that Rule 18 of the Rules has been complied with in this case because the report of the Public Analyst shows that the specimen impression of the seal which was affixed on the bottle of the sample had been sent separately by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst has clearly mentioned in his report Ex. PD that the sample of the milk sent to him for analysis was properly sealed and fastened that he found the seal intact and the seal contained on the container of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent to the Public Analyst and the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. This report of the Public Analyst is the conclusive evidence of the fact that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provision of Rule 18 of the Rules.

In similar circumstances, the Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishar Dass (1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 105) 1985 Cri. L.J. 1061 , has observed in the following terms :

"Where the report of the Public Analyst categorically stated that the specimen of the seal was received and it was sealed separately, it could not be said that since report was on a printed form, no reliance should be placed on it.

The analyst had to tell in what form and condition all the things were received in his office. Whatever the Analyst found and noticed as correctly done was entered in the report. If there had been any violation of any provision of Rule 18, he could have recorded it in his certificate. If he had not received the specimen of the seal at all or had received it in the same packet containing the sample and not separately, or had received it after delay, then such information, according to the situation, should have been mentioned in report. All acts done by the Public Analyst in discharge of the duties imposed upon him by the Rules, when done regularly, have to be presumed to have been done correctly. The Public Analyst received the sample and the facsimile of the seal separately. Unless it had been sent separately by the Food Inspector, he could not have received it in that manner."

In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Full Bench, I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no compliance of Rule 18 of the Rules.

In the result, this revision petition fails and the same in dismissed. The petitioner is on bail and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.