Rama Nand vs State of Haryana

K.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The facts of the case are that Shri Satpal Malik, Food Inspector PW1 alongwith Dr. Harbans Lal Arora PW2 and Bhoop Singh at about 9.15 a.m. on 24.9.1981, intercepted Rama Nand petitioner near Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, Shri S.P. Malik, Food Inspector, PW1, after disclosing his identity and conveying him his intention to collect the sample of milk purchased 660 ml. of cows milk for Rs. 2/ against a receipt. The same was divided in three equal parts and put in three clean and dry bottles. The bottles were tightly stopppered, fastened and wrapped into parcels and sealed. One part of the sample was handed over to Rama Nand petitioner, the other was deposited with the health authorities and the third was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after analysis, found that the milk fat in the sample was 5.7 per cent in place of 8.2 per cent and the milk solids not fats were 7.5 per cent in place of 8.5 per cent. Vide his report the Public Analyst described the sample as adulterated. The result of the analysis was conveyed to the petitioner.

The Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, Rama Nand petitioner was summoned by that Court after recording preliminary evidence. Shri Satpal Malik, Food Inspector PW1 and Dr. Harbans Lal Arora PW2 testified to the details of the collection of the sample from the drum carried by Ram Nand petitioner. They stated that milk was made homogeneous by stirring before the sample was separated. Bhim Sain Bali, an employee of the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon deposed that intimation was sent to Rama Nand petitioner about the result of the sample. Bhoop Singh was given up.

When examined at the close of the prosecution evidence Rama Nand petitioner denied the case against him. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, after accepting the prosecution evidence, convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Rama Nand petitioner unsuccessfully contested the order of conviction in the Court of Shri R.D. Aneja, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The present revision petition is directed against the concurrent orders of this conviction recorded by the Subordinate Courts.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that although Shri Satpal Malik, Food Inspector PW1 and Dr. Harbans Lal Arora PW2, stated in their evidence at the trial that the sample was taken after the milk in the drum was thoroughly stirred and made homogeneous, but this is done only by way of improvement. With the help of the counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgments and evidence on the record. It is not necessary that the complaint should contain all the details connected with the performance of an act by a Government official in the discharge of his duty, but at the same time it cannot be said that the complainant can remain content by only giving sketchy facts in the complaint. The complaint in criminal cases has a very important role. It is the earliest version of the case which is presented before the Court. In food cases this complaint assumes more importance regarding the details of the facts since it is prepared by a Food Inspector, who is educated and is presumed to be proficient in the performance of his duties to detect adulteration in articles of food keeping in view the technicalities of law. They are expected to keep in touch with the latest law whether statutory or Judge made on the subject. The Food Inspectors prepared the complaints after a lapses of many days and in certain cases months after the detention of the crime or the result given by the Public Analyst. As these complaints are prepared long time after the detention of the crime, they are expected to contain details like making of the bulk, from which a sample is taken, homogeneous. The principle that the bulk should be made homogeneous before the sample is taken has attained judicial recognition and is well known to the persons who are engaged in the trade of articles of food and the law enforcement agencies. It is rather late in the day for the State counsel to take up the plea that the Food Inspectors do not know the importance of this aspect of their act. The omission of the fact regarding stirring of the milk in a case in which sample of milk is taken, assumes importance as its later introduction in evidence amount to improvement on the part of the witnesses to bring their statements in confirmity with the law on the subject. If the Food Inspector, at the time of making of the statement, exhibits knowledge about this aspect of law, he cannot be said to be ignorant at the time when he drafted the complaint. In the State of Punjab and another v. Jagan Nath, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 5 : 1986(2) C.L.R. 479 , a Division Bench of this Court observed :

"There is, therefore, no gainsaying that before a sample of milk is taken by the Food Inspector he must ensure that the milk has been made homogeneous. Otherwise the report of the analyst is bound to be misleading regarding the contents of the fat and solids not fat. While assessing the value of the report it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain if the sample of milk had been properly taken by the Food Inspector. The proper sample would only be of milk made homogeneous by stirring. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the milk was not properly stirred and made homogeneous it is not bound to rely upon the report of the Public Analyst to base conviction of the milk vendor. To come to a conclusion that the milk was made homogenous when the sample was taken the contents of the complaint have necessarily to be looked into. In case the factum of stirring of the milk is missing in the complaint, it is open to the trial Court to entertain doubt on the statement of the Food Inspector and his witnesses in respect thereof."

The effort of Shri Satpal Malik, Food Inspector PW1 and Dr. Harbans Lal Arora PW2, cannot escape the inference that they had made improvement to make their evidence more effective and weighty against Rama Nand petitioner. It was for the first time in their statements at the trial that this was made known to the accused. In the documents prepared prior to this, there is no mention of the stirring of the milk. Even the complaint prepared much later does not have even a distant reflection about this performance of the duty by the Food Inspector.

I had an occasion to point out earlier also in another case that the Food Inspectors working in the State of Punjab and Haryana had adopted a convenient method of getting the proforma of the complaints printed or cyclostyled. These proformas have been prepared without reference to the uptodate law existing on the subject. I feel the Food Inspectors do not apply their minds even at the time when they fill in blanks in those printed proformas. It is high time that the Food Inspectors operating in these two States rise to the occasion and realise their responsibility in the matter of such functions to bring up the performance of their important duty like the filing of the complaints in cases under the Food Adulteration Act in conformity with the law on the subject. The earlier these officers realise the importance of this fact the better, it would be for the administration of justice and the proper functioning of the branches of the administration in which they are employed. A simple lack of will on their part to apply their conscientious mind to the filing of the complaints, results into acquittal of the accused against whom the case otherwise, except this aspect, may be well proved.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I have no option but to accept the revision, set aside the judgments of the Courts below upholding the conviction of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge.