Rajinder Kumar vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—In this criminal revision, Rajinder Kumar petitioner assails his conviction under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide his order dated October 22, 1981, sentenced him to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, upheld his conviction and sentence.

The broad outline of the persecution case is that on February 21, 1980, S.S. Yadav, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. P.K. Jain went to the premises of the accused and purchased 750 gms. of laddus from the latter on payment of Rs. 5.25 P against receipt Exhibit P.B. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated because it was coloured with unpermitted yellow basic coal tar dye and as such was unfit for human consumption.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of S.S. Yadav, Food Inspector, P.W. 1, Mithia Ram, Clerk, office of the Chief Medical Officer, Jind, P.W. 3 and Dr. P.K. Jain P.W.4. Babu Ram, P.W.2 was declared hostile as he refused to support the prosecution case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence.

Mr. D.S. Bali, appearing for the petitioner has raised identical arguments which were earlier urged before the Appellate Court and which have been elaborately dealt with. To my mind, it would be totally wasteful to traverse the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that I would endorse in toto the reasoning and the findings of the Appellate Court. However, an argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner was that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of S. 13 (2) of the Act and as such the whole proceedings have become vitiated. In support of his contention reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in Darshan Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1982 Crl L.T. 410 and Chand Roop v. The State of Haryana, 1982(11) FAC, 212. This point has been so adequately and lucidly met but the learned additional Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 7 of his judgment that it would be obviously wasteful and repetitive to cover the same ground over again and agreeing with his finding that there was compliance of S. 13 (2) of the Act in this case in view of the clear statement made by Mitha Ram Clerk from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Jind, that an acknowledgement due form, Exhibit P.G. accompanied the registered letter. Exhibit P.F. forwarded to the petitioner, correctly addressed, containing the report and the intimation and that the A.D. form had been received back, which goes to show that the registered letter had been received by the petitioner. In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the report and intimation were in fact forwarded to the petitioner. To repeat again, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary such an inference is not only justified on fact, but also in law. It is needless to refer to the aforesaid authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner because they are clearly distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that if at all the report and the intimation were sent to the petitioner but the forwarding letter, Exhibit P.F. and the acknowledgement due Exhibit PG were not put to the petitioner at the time of his examination recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, these documents should not be used against him for holding that he had received the report of the Public Analyst. It is to be noticed that nowhere in the Courts below, it was argued on behalf the petitioner that the covering letter along with the report and the acknowledgement form were not put to the petitioner under S. 313 Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the petitioner was prejudiced. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel cited Kali Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1983 Crl. L.R. 10. This is an ingenious argument which has now been pressed into service by the petitioner''s counsel. It is noticeable that even in the grounds of revision filed in this Court, no such ground had been taken. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner''s counsel cannot be allowed to throw surprise to the counsel opposite. The authority cited by the learned counsel is of no assistance to the petitioner.

Inevitably, a prayer had been made on behalf of the petitioner for reduction in the sentence. Emphasis is laid on the fact that the sample was taken as far back as 1980. There is, however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence. Taking into consideration the protracted trial of the petitioner. I think that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months and it is ordered accordingly. The sentence of fine with its default clause shall, however, remain. With this modification in the sentence, this revision petition is dismissed.