Sangat Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 21.6.1980 Shri C.L. Sikri, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. G.P. Saluja went to Kurukshetra University and intercepted Sangat Singh while he was carrying 10 litres of cow''s milk for public sale. Sham Lal PW was joined by the Food Inspector and thereafter he purchased 660 mililitres of milk for analysis after properly stirring the same. The milk was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean bottles which were sealed as per rules. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis and the other two bottles were deposited with Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of the milk was deficient in milk solids not fat contents by 16.5% of the minimum prescribed standard and was, thus, adulterated.

On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst a complaint was presented against Sangat Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sangat Singh was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ on a judgment dated 28th July, 1984. The appeal preferred against this judgment was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 19th November 1986, Hence the present revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before me is that the extent of adulteration was not put to the petitioner when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as a result of which a great prejudice was caused to him. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on Nasib Singh v. The State of Haryana 1986(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 213 and Mangal Dass v. The State of Haryana, 1986(2) C.L.R. 5. In this later authority a sample of cow''s milk was purchased from the accused for purposes of analysis and the same was found to be adulterated on account of deficiency in fat vide report of the Public Analyst. Extent of adulteration was not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was held :

"A plain reading of the relevant question put to the petitioner In his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, disclose that there was no such compliance. In one long winding question, the factum of the report of the Public Analyst disclosing that there was adulteration, the complaint having been lodged by the Food Inspector and a copy of the report having been sent to him within statutory time, was put to him, which he denied. The extent of adulteration was not put to him to explain. Thus, on the strength of Ram Chander''s case (supra) the conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable."

In the present case the only question asked to the petitioner regarding adulteration found, in the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that vide report Ex.PD of the Public Analyst the sample of milk was found adulterated which led the Food Inspector to file the complaint Ex. PE and a copy of the report was sent to him by the Local Health Authority along with forwarding letter copy of which was Ex.PF. The petitioner was never asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him i.e. as per report of the Public Analyst. Ex.PD milk solids not fat contents of the sample were 7.1% and as such deficient by 16.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. It is the duty of the Court to question the accused properly and fairly bringing home to his mind in clear and simple language the exact case he had to meet and each material point i.e. sought to be made against him and affording him a chance to explain that if he can and so desires. It is not sufficient to put to the accused the usual formal questions. The accused is to be questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing against him in evidence and if any circumstances not put to him in his examination that will surely cause prejudice to the accused in his defence. Similar view was taken by him in Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 396. Thus, on the strength of above mentioned authorities the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, this petition succeeds, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.

JUDGMENT accordingly.