Ram Saran Dass vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Ram Saran Dass petitioner was brought up for trial under S. 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and having been found guilty thereof, was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in an elaborate and lucid judgment dated 18.9.1981 upheld the conviction, but reduced his sentence to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Saran Dass has now come up in revision.

On 27th January, 1980, Shri A.N. Sharma, the then Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. K.R. Rathee went to the shop of the petitioner situated in the main bazar, Gohana, and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from him, for analysis. One Ganga Ram was also summoned at the spot. The sample of the mustard oil was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit P.D., opined that the saponification value was 182.4 against the maximum prescribed standard of 177. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of Shri A.N. Sharma, the Food Inspector and Dr. K.R. Rathee. P.W. Ganga Ram was also examined but he refused to support the prosecution case. He, however, admitted having signed the memos'' Exhibits P.A., P.B. and P.C. The petitioner admitted that the sample of mustard oil was purchased from him by the Food Inspector but denied having sold adulterated mustard oil. No evidence was, however, led by him in defence.

The first argument raised with little persistence by Mr. Rathor in support of this revision petition is that according to item A. 17.06, the saponification value of mustard oil should be 168 to 177 and if the saponification value found by the Public Analyst in his report, Exhibit P.D., was 182.4, the increase in the saponification value was negligible due to the fact that the impurity in the mustard oil could be upto 70% by weight, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample was adulterated. It has now been authoritatively laid down by a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433, that no resort can be had to the process of any addition or subtraction of the percentages of variation from the prescribed standard for arriving at a conclusion that the article is not adulterated or that marginal deviation from the prescribed standard could be ignored. Consequently this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must be rejected.

It is then urged that the right available to the petitioner under S. 13(2) of the Act was denied to him because a copy of the Public Analyst alongwith the information to the petitioner, that he may get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for reexamination, was not sent to him. The argument seems to be misconceived. Under S. 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner was asked about this having received the report of the Public Analyst through the Local Health Authority vide memo Exhibit P.F., and he admitted this fact. S. 13(2) of the Act was, therefore, complied with and the petitioner had to thank himself because he could not send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for reexamination. Thus none of the two months raised in the revision prevails.

The learned defence counsel then finally urged that the sample was taken on 27.1.1980 i.e. more than 3 years back. The petitioner according to him is not proved to be a previous convict. On that ground, he has urged that the benefit of probation be extended to him. I feel difficulty in this contention of the learned counsel as taking into consideration, the risk to the society from the food/adulterators, legislature had to amend the Act itself by providing S. 20 AA of the Act for the exclusion of the benefit of probation under S. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the person accused of the offence under the Act. Even the Supreme Court has shown its disapproval of such a policy. So far as the sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already been leniently dealt with by the Additional Sessions Judge and I do not inclined to reduce it further.

For the reasons given above I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed.