State of Haryana vs Satpal Singh

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated May 22, 1984, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, dismissing a complaint filed under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by Shri C.L. Grover, Food Inspector, for want of prosecution and acquitting the accused.

According to the prosecution, the Food Inspector C.L. Grover along with Dr. V.K. Gupta and one Ishwar Parkash took sample of cow milk being carried in five drums on motorcycle by the accused on August 28, 1978, at about 10.30 a.m. The sample was divided into three equal parts and after adding the necessary preservative it was sealed in three bottles and the usual formalities were completed. The Public Analyst found the sample to be deficient in milk fat to the extent of 98.7 per cent. Complaint was filed. The Local (Health) Authority informed the accused about the result of the analysis and about his right to send another part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory.

After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned. The Food Inspector PW1 C.L. Grover and Dr. V.K Gupta PW2 were recalled for crossexamination. The complainant further examined Dr. H.P. Goshal, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, to show that two parts of the sample along with forwarding letter in Form VII were duly received by the Local (Health) Authority. Suraj Parkash, Licence Clerk, Municipal Committee, Ambala, stated that the accused had been issued a licence for the relevant year for selling cows milk. The licence was in force at the time of taking the present sample. Ishwar Parkash was given up as having been won over.

The accused denied the evidence and circumstances appearing against him and stated that he was carrying ''Separata'' milk. It was so written on the drums and he informed the Food Inspector at the spot, but the Food Inspector forcibly wrote cow''s milk on the sample. He wrote in his own hand the words ''Separata milk'' at the time of putting his signatures on the papers. The Food Inspector felt offended and he had, therefore, been falsely implicated. He examined Inder Singh DW1 in defence.

The case was fixed for arguments on May 22, 1984, for framing a charge. The complainant failed to appear when the case was called for hearing. The aforesaid order was passed. Aggrieved by the order, the State has preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute that under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence being not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate had a discretion to discharge the accused. The contention, however, is that the Magistrate passed the impugned order with unholy haste. Learned counsel emphasized that the entire evidence had been recorded. Lot of public time of various functionaries, such as, the Food Inspector, the Public Analyst and Local (Health) Authority had been spent. The Court itself had spent considerable time and the complaint was dismissed at 8.55 a.m. when another Food Inspector was present and the complainant reached the Court five minutes later. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel is that the discretion vested in the Magistrate had not been properly exercised, with the result that this had resulted in failure of justice.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, is that in dismissing the complaint the Magistrate must have been influenced by the fact that at the time of taking the sample, the accused had written both in Exhibit PB, the receipt for the purchase of the sample, as well as Exhibit PC that what had been sold by him was ''Separata'' milk. If the plea of the accused, namely, that he had in his possession ''Separata'' milk is accepted, then there would be no adulteration according to the prescribed standards. Learned counsel further emphasized that the sample had been taken about 13 years back and the accused had undergone the agony of a protracted trial before the Magistrate.

We do not approve of the Magistrate having dismissed the complaint and we are of the view that this was not a proper exercise of discretion vested in him. We find that the learned Magistrate failed to note the time when the case had been called earlier or at what time it was actually taken up. We, therefore, accept the stand taken by the State that the complaint was dismissed in the earlier part of the day. It has been stated above that quite considerable time had been spent in connection with this case apart from the others by the Court itself. Offences under the Prevention of Adulteration Act have an additional dimension. The avowed object is to protect the health of the people. However, in the facts of the present case, the sample was taken about 13 years back and the accused had faced a trial which remained pending for a considerable period. An additional reason in the present case is that the trial had been conducted as a warrant case. What was required to be done was to have tried the accused according to the summary procedure as laid down in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, 1984(11) F.A.C. 1979. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the present appeal against acquittal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.