Lal Chand vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Lal Chand was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide order dated 19.9.87.

His appeal to the Court of Session failed so far as conviction is concerned but qua sentence the same was partly accepted and the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 6 months R.I. Sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Feeling that he has been unjustifiably convicted and sentenced by the courts below, Lal Chand has come up in revision to this court.

Now the facts in brief :

On 29.10.79 at 4.30 p.m., Sher Singh, Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused and found him in possession of about 5 kilograms of Lal Mirch powder for sale contained in a tin. He disclosed his identity through notice in Form VII that he was Food Inspector intending to take sample of Lal Mirch powder from him with a view to having the same analysed. Thereafter, he purchased 450 grams of Lal Mirch powder from him on payment of Rs. 4.25 to him against receipt. Lal mirch powder purchased was divided into 3 equal parts. He put each of the parts in dry and clean bottles. Bottles were labelled, stoppered, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong thick paper which was secured by means of paper slip bearing Code number and the signatures of the local health authority. It was secured with twine also. Bottles were sealed with distinct seals. Signatures of Lal Chand were taken in a manner that they appeared partly on the paper slip and partly on the wrapper of the bottle. Paper cover was further secured and thread was then fastened on the paper cover sealing which was bearing the impression of the seal of Food Inspector and PW Dr. R.S. Pandey. One sealed bottle was sent to the public analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh along with memo in form VII in a sealed cover by registered parcel. On 30.10.79 other bottles along with memo VII bearing the seal impression of local health authority, Bhiwani with seals intact were deposited in the office of the local health authority on 30.10.79. Copy of specimen impression used in sealing the packets was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana vide postal receipt. After the receipt of the report of the public analyst Ex. PD, complaint was instituted against the accused under section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Information was sent to the local health authority regarding the institution of the complaint. Local health authority sent copy of the report of the public analyst along with forwarding memo to the accused through registered post. Sample was found to be adulterated as it exceeded the prescribed maximum standard of total ash insoluble in HCl and is also contained 2.98% grit and it also contained oil soluble red coaltar dye.

On the conclusion of the trial, Lal Chand was convicted and sentenced as indicated above by the learned Magistrate. In appeal, his conviction was maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani but the sentence was reduced to RI for 6 months. Imposition of fine was not disturbed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the courts below urging that petitioner was deprived of valuable right granted to him by section 13(2) of the Act. Accused could request the court to send the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Director, Central Food Laboratory is taken to be greater expert in analysing the articles of food stuff and his report susperseds the report of the public analyst. It was submitted that there is no postal receipt on the record of the file showing that the report of the public analyst was really despatched to the accused. PW4 Surinder Kumar Clerk, local health authority, Bhiwani has stated that report of the public analyst was sent to the accused on 24.12.84 together with forwarding letter. He stated that there is no postal receipt on the record showing the despatch of the report of the public analyst. He stated that it might have got misplaced. Suffice it to say, the forwarding letter shows the receipt of the copy of the report of the public analyst by him and the date when he received that copy. It was next submitted that the presence of grit in the sample of Lal Mirch powder is because the road in front of the shop of the accused was being repaired and the possibility of grit having got mixed with the sample cannot be ruled out. In this regard, he drew my attention to the statement of Radhey Shyam DW1 who stated that during those days, road in front of the shop of the accused was being repaired and some grit might have got mixed in the Lal Mirch powder because of the blowing of wind. Suffice it to say, the sample of Lal Mirch powder was not conforming to the standards as laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules in other respect also. It contained oil soluble red coal tar dye and it exceeded the prescribed maximum standard of total ash and insoluble in oil in HCl. Assuming that report of the public analyst was not sent to the accused, the accused appeared before the court within 3 months of the institution of the complaint. After appearance before the court, the accused could request the court that the other part of the sample be sent to Central Food Laboratory for analysis. If the accused had made such a request and the other part of the sample had been sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the same would have been analysed. After lapse of time, Lal Mirch powder would not have become decomposed. It would have remained fit for analysis. The benefit of the noncompliance of the Provisions of the Act could be given to the accused only if there had been some prejudice to him.

It was next submitted that there has been noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 16(b) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Rule 16(b) of the Rules reads as follows :

"The bottle, jar or other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper shall be neatly folded in and fixed by means of gum or other adhesive."

It was submitted that there was every possibility of tampering with the sample if the same was not wrapped. I do not find any merit so far as this contention is concerned. It was clearly stated by the Food Inspector that the bottles were completely wrapped in khakhi paper. The sample was packed in accordance with requirements of Rule 16(b) of the Rules. Food Inspector stated that the said paper cover was further secured by means of strong thread tied thereon which was further fastened by means of sealing bearing the impression of his seal and that of Dr. Pandey. If the Food Inspector has not spoken in the very language used in the said rule, that does not mean that the provisions of said rule remained uncomplied with. It is clear from the report of the public analyst that the sample was intact and its seals were intact when the same was analysed.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of the provisions of section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as no independent witness from the locality was joined. Suffice it to say, there is no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector and Dr. Pandey. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused should have given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Sample was allegedly taken on 29.10.79. Complaint was instituted in the court of Magistrate in the year 1986. Magistrate decided the complaint on 19.9.87. Additional Sessions Judge decided the appeal in the year 1987. We are in the year 1998. Accused has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 19 years. It was submitted that there has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to speedy trial to the accused. In Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 125, a single Bench of this court observed that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right granted under the Constitution. Fundamental rights were not a teasing illusions to be mocked at. These were meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 10 years or more without any case at all, cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It was submitted that the accused has been facing the vagaries of this criminal prosecution for the last over 15 years, as such, he should be let off with the sentence he has already undergone. Suffice it to say, selling an article of food which is substandard or which does not conform to the standards of purity as laid down in the Act is an antisocial act. Such people who try to enrich themselves at the cost of the health of their fellow brethren should not be let off with a sentence which is only illusory. Sentence imposed should, however, be slashed because the accused has faced the ordeal of this criminal trial for more than 15 years. Sentence is reduced to 3 months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/. Subject to this reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.