State of Haryana vs Radhey Sham

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Radhey Sham son of Suraj Bhan accusedrespondent was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alongwith one Tara Chand by Shri R.C. Kathuria, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. He was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Tara Chand was given benefit of probation for one year on his entering into a personal bond. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Radhey Sham filed an appeal against the judgment dated 1111979 by Shri R.C. Kathuria. His appeal was accepted by Shri Krishan Kant Aggarwal. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat as per judgment dated 19121981 which has now been assailed by the State of Haryana in this appeal.

The prosecution case against the respondent was that on 6101976, Balwan Singh, Food Inspector accompanied by Lakhi Ram and Dr. Satish Gusain visited the shop of the respondent situated in village Murthal. Tara Chand who represented himself to be an employee of Radhey Sham was present at the shop and 20 kilograms of `ajwain'' was found lying in the shop which was kept for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of `ajwain'' on payment of Rs. 1.80 to Tara Chand. This `ajwain'' was divided into three parts and was put into three bottles which were duly wrapped, labelled and scaled under the rules. One of the scaled bottles was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana through Shri Satbir Singh, Peon, along with memorandum or seal used in scaling the sample. On analysis, the sample or `ajwain'' was found to be infested with insects and it also contained 5.2% organic extraneous matter and 2.9% inorganic extraneous matter against the maximum prescribed standard of 3% and 2% respectively. A report to that effect was received and a copy of the same was sent to the respondent and Tara Chand by registered post.

The respondent when examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution version and stated that the shop in question, was being run by his father at the time the alleged sample was taken and he had no concern with same.

The learned lower appellate Court found that there was noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act by the Local Health Authority. This fact was also not proved by credible evidence that the respondent was the owner of the shop from where the sample was taken.

We have heard Shri J. S. Dhillon, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the mandatory provisions of the Act had been complied with and there were also the statements of Balwan Singh, Satish Gusain and Lakhi Ram, PWs to show that the respondent was running the shop and Tara Chand was a servant. He also referred to the postal receipt exhibit P. F. in support of his contention that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent and Tara Chand by registered post and there was due compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The statement of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, cannot be accepted as there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there had been noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Dr. J.C. Rai, PW4 deposed from the despatch register that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent and Tara Chand in one envelope on 4121976. But he had no personal knowledge as at that time one Dr. Baldev Datt was Local Health Authority. He had not delivered the copy of the report to the respondent personally and he could not say if it was posted. The postal receipt exhibit P.F. did not bear the date and stamp of the post office containing the date on which the registered letter was sent. Name of the post office was also not mentioned. The address written on the postal receipt was not of the respondent nor it was that of Tara Chand though only name of Tara Chand appeared to be written. When two persons are to be prosecuted in a case for food adulteration, then copy of the report of Public Analyst has to be sent to both of them independently and separately. But in the instant case, no copy was sent to the respondent. The prosecution did not produce office copy of the memorandum which might have been sent along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. If such a memo has been produced then only prosecution could show that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was separately sent to the respondent. The respondent was thus not informed of his statutory right to make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of articles of food kept by the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In case of Amar Chand v. The State, 1981 Punjab Law Reporter 210, it was held "the compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and that its non compliance vitiates the conviction". In the instant case, the respondent denied that he had any concern with the shop and contended that the shop was run by his father. Admittedly the sample was purchased by the Food Inspector not from the respondent but from Tara Chand, an employee. It was for the prosecution to establish that the business of the shop was conducted by the respondent or by his servant on his behalf. The evidence in the respect was completely lacking. The learned lower appellate Court rightly considered the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent.

As a result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.