Sat Pal vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner Sat Pal was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ropar (Roopnagar) vide his order dated 22nd May, 1981 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar (Roopnagar). He did not find any merit in the appeal and consequently dismissed the same. Still feeling not satisfied the petitioner has come to this Court in Revision.

The prosecution case as gathered from the evidence is that on 18th July, 1978, P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla, who in those days was invested with the powers of Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inspected the business premises of Sat Pal, petitioner. He was running a Halwai shop at Bus Stand, Kurali. Dr. N.K. Singla (P.W.1) was accompanied by P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi. The petitioner was found in possession of 5 Kgs. of cow''s milk contained in a `Patila'' for sale. After disclosing his identity and following the procedure laid down under the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner against payment vide receipt Exh. P.B. Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, complied with other formalities about dividing the sample in three parts, adding preservative to each part corking, wrapping labelling and sealing each part. Various memos, prepared by Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, at the spot were attested by the petitioner and P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi. P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla, sent one part of the sample to the public Analyst and deposited the other two parts with P.W. 2 Dr. H.R. Diwan, Civil Surgeon, who in those days had been appointed as Local Health Authority, Ropar. The Public Analyst vide his report Exh. P.F. opined that the milk fat contents in the sample were 2.2% while milk solids not fats 8.2% and thus milk fat was deficient by 45% and milksolids not fats 3.5% of the prescribed minimum standards. Therefore, the Food Inspector filed the complaint Exh. P.G.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he did not sell milk. In his defence he examined D.W. 1 Faqir Chand who stated that the petitioner is running a tea shop.

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the present case the Food Inspector did not comply with the provision of subsection (7) of Section 10 of the Act. That provisions lay down that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (4) or subsection (6) of the section, he shall call one more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of the said Section have been violated in as much as no independent witness was called when the sample was taken. According to him, Dr. Rajiv Sethi, P.W. 3, who had accompanied Dr. N.K. Singla, Food Inspector, cannot said to be an independent witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a few cases to show that the Food Inspector is bound to join independent witnesses. Some of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the joining of some subordinate person of his own department by the Government Food Inspector. In those cases, it was held those persons could not be said to be independent witnesses. I need not discuss those cases as in the present case Dr. Rajiv Sethi cannot be said to be subordinate to Dr. N.K. Singla.

Before I proceed further, I may quote the following passage from State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar and others, 1984(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 21 : A.I.R. 1983, S.C. 545 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court remarked as follows :

"Adulteration and misbranding of food stuffs are rampant evils in our country. The Act is brought into force to check these social evils in the large public interest for ensuring public welfare. In certain cases the Act provides for imposition of penalty without proof of a guilty mind. This show the degree of concern exhibited by Parliament in so far as public health is concerned. While construing such food laws Courts should keep in view that the need for prevention of future injury is as important as punishing a wrong doer after the injury is actually inflicted. Merely because a person who has actually suffered in his health after consuming adulterated food would not be before Court in such cases, courts should not be too eager to quash on slender grounds the prosecution for offences, alleged to have been committed under the Act."

Thus in cases under the Act the Courts should not be eager to acquit the accused on slender grounds.

In the present case the sample was not taken by a person who had been appointed as Government Food Inspector. Such a person might be interested in the success of his case to reflect his efficiency. The sample was taken from the petitioner by P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla who was posted as a Radiologist in the Civil Hospital, Ropar. He was invested with the powers of the Food Inspector. Therefore, it cannot be said that P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla would have any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner For the same reason P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi, who in those days was posted as Medical Officer, Singhpura as appears from the description of that witness given in the complaint cannot be said to be having any animus against the petitioner nor he can be said to be under the control of P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be held that P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi would go to any extent to support P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla.

Presence of the witness is required to inspire confidence in the proceedings taken by the Food Inspector about taking sample of a food article for purposes of analysis. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument on the point that in the present case the formalities as laid down by the Act and the rules framed thereunder were not complied with while taking sample from the petitioner. Therefore, it must be held that all the formalities were duly observed by the Food Inspector, i.e. Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, 1980 (II) F.A.C. 396. In that case one Dr. P.L. Kalra, who had been invested with the powers of Food Inspector had joined one Dr. K.K. Khatri. It had come in evidence that Dr. Khatri had been deputed by the Civil Surgeon to accompany Dr. P.L. Kalra for assisting the latter in the taking of samples. It was held that Dr. K.K. Khatri could not be said to be a person of the choice of the Food Inspector and, therefore, the requirement of law as laid down by section 10(7) of the Act had not been complied with. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am of the opinion that the Act nowhere requires the Food Inspector to join witness of his own choice. It only requires that he shall call one or more person to be present at the time when the action is taken by him for the purchase of food article which is required to be analysed. If the witness, who accompanies the Food Inspector, is a person of responsibility and status then the case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the person, who had accompanied the Food Inspector, was not a man of his choice.

It has come in the evidence that near the shop of the petitioner there were some other shops and some person were selling their merchandise on the rehris. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one of those persons could have been called to join proceedings. Of course, it would have been better if Food Inspector had also called one of those persons. However, it is to be remembered that for when certain offences minimum sentence is provided, the stakes for the accused are very high & he tries to win over the witnesses. If the Food Inspector tries to join some neighbour of the accused, there is very possibility of such witness being won over. In the present case, one respectable person of status was already with Food Inspector and, therefore, there was no necessity for him to call one of the shop keepers or rehriwalas. For the foregoing reasons it is held that in present case there was no violation of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the accused is a tea vender and he relied upon the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and of D.W. 1 Faqir Chand. To none of the prosecution witnesses it was suggested that the accused is a mere tea vender. Even if for the sake of argument it is held that he is a tea vender and had kept milk for preparing tea, even then he will be liable to have committed the offence. In this respect reference may be made to the Explanation appended to Section 7 of the Act. That Explanation reads as follows :

"For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause (iii) or clause (iv) if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale."

Therefore, even if the milk had been stored by the petitioner for preparing tea, it should have been of the prescribed standards.

In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the present petition and dismiss the same.