State of Haryana vs Rajender Parshad

K.S. Garewal, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana dated December 8,1997 whereby Rajender Parshad, respondent had been acquitted of an offence u/s 7 read with Section 61(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act'').

It was on October 18,1993 at about 6 p.m. when a Government Food Inspector inspected the Atta Chakki of Rejender Parshad situated at Baroda Road, Gohana. The respondent was in possession of 50 kgs. of atta for public sale; 600 grams of atta was purchased for the purpose of analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry bottles. One of the sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. It was reported that the sample was adulterated since the analysis revealed presence of six living and three dead weevils.

The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that for the sample to be declared as adulterated, it was necessary for the Public Analyst to also certify that the sample was insect-infested or it was filthy, putrid, decomposed or rotten and as such unfit for human consumption. Therefore, the absence of an explicit description of the sample, merely saying that the sample contained some weevils was not enough to hold that it was adulterated. The respondent was accordingly acquitted.

In this case everything dependent on the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PH which was to the effect that "the sample is adulterated as it showed the presence of nine insects (six living and three dead weevils) in the entire sample."

Definition of an "adulterated" article of food is given in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Section 2(i-a) described the various types of adulterated articles of food. The relevant definition is contained in sub-section (f) and is to the effect that food shall be deemed to be adulterated, "if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption."

While it is true that presence of insects in the sample has been proved but for the respondent to be convicted it had to be shown that the sample was insect-infested and unfit for human consumption on account of presence of insects. The Public Analyst omitted to give his opinion in this regard. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 SCC(Cri.) 1720 would be applicable. In the said case as sample of suji had contained eight living meal worms and one living weevil, but the Public Analyst had not opened that the sample was insect-infested or in fit for human consumption on account of the presence of these insects and the acquittal had been upheld by the Court.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.