Pritam Lal vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Sample of paneer purchased by the Government Food Inspector from accusedpetitioner Pritam Lal at 6.30 P.M. on November 30, 1981 was found to be adulterated. On being prosecuted for it under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated March 23, 1985 learned trial Court convicted him of the commission of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. In Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1985 learned lower Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated March 22, 1986 endorsed the findings of the learned trial Court, maintained the conviction and sentence both and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment is of the learned two courts below Pritam Lal has filed criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1986 in this Court.

I have heard Shri S.C. Kapoor, Advocate, with Sarvshri Ashish Kapoor and Gurmohan Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri D.S. Bishnoi, D.A.G. Haryana for the State respondent and perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

In all the three documents Exhibit PA, Exhibit PB and Exhibit PC the Food Inspector had used the word `Paneer'' (Cheese) for the sample purchased by him from the accusedpetitioner. Standard for cheese and paneer set out in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is different. The sample taken from the accused conforms to the standard of cheese but not of paneer. Accused petitioner is certainly entitled to the benefit of this misdescription of the article of food purchased by the Food Inspector from him in Exhibit PA to Exhibit PC. In Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab, 1980(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 426 Hon''ble Mr. Justice I.S. Tiwana (as his lordship then was) observed, "so far as the second argument of the learned counsel is concerned, I feel, he is on firm ground. It is clear from notice, Exhibit PA; receipt, Exhibit PB, and the sample memo, Exhibit PC, that what was taken into possession by Dr. S. Dutta, was red chillies. The report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit PD, shows that what was analysed by him was chillies powder. Thus it is obvious that the material taken into possession was not analysed by the public Analyst. The argument that in Exhibits PA, PB and PC it was wrongly mentioned that red chillies had been purchased or taken into possession, does not carry conviction. It is beyond comprehension as to how a man of the status and experience of Dr. S. Dutta could make such a mistake. Then further if the chilies purchased by the doctor was the material which was examined by the Public Analyst and he found 1.52 percent dirt in the same, even then the same cannot resaid to be adulterated in view of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule 5, read with A. 05 05 of Appendix B framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The rule envisages extraneous matter, such as, dirt etc in the chillies upto 5.0 per cent." The accused is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt on this score and thereby earns an acquittal.

SubSection (1) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads "On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the came may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." Shri Raj Kumar PW1 clearly states that he did not send a copy of the report Exhibit PD submitted by the Public Analyst to the accused in this case. There has thus been a clear breach of the legal provisions aforesaid. Bijaya Kumar Ram v. State, 1989(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 894 is an authority for the view, " It is the settled position of law that the provision of section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature which means, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst must have to be served on the shop owner from whose shop samples have been collected in accordance with rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as (`the Rules'') so that he will get opportunity of one of the samples reexamined in the Central Food Laboratory. Contravention of section 13(2) of the Act, therefore, is fatal to the prosecution. In support of the above view, I will refer to only three decisions of this Court in which several decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Court have been discussed. They are State of Orissa v. Jeebanlal, 1986 CLR 421; Rama Chandra Sahu v. State, 1988(1) FAC 3 disposed of on 10.12.1986, and a Bench decision reported as Nagendra Nath Roy v. Hariram Singhania and another, 59(1985) CLT 35." Noncompliance of sub section 13(2) of the Act ibid being fatal to the prosecution case, the accused earns an acquittal on this score as well.

For the reasons given above, Criminal Revision filed by accusedpetitioner succeeds is allowed. Judgments of the learned courts below are both set aside and accused petitioner is acquitted. Accused is on bail from this Court vide order dated April 28, 1986. Bail bonds furnished by his surety as also the personal bond put in by the accused shall both stand discharged.