State of Punjab vs Bakhtawar Lal

S.K. Jain, J.

On 21.6.1990 sample of Duble diamond tea was seized by Government Food Inspector from the Karyana shop of Bakhtawar Lal who had exhibited the same for public sale. On analysis the Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PF found the contents to be adulterated as it contained one iron bail of length 2.6 cm. equivalent, to 2960 parts per million in weight. Thereafter, the Government Food Inspector filed complaint Ex. P4 against Bhakhtawar Lal and the manufacture M/s. Duncans Agro Industries, Ltd. 31 N.S. Road, Calcutta and its Managing Director.

On the request of the manufacturer, the second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Laboratory, Mysore, where vide its report Ex. PL it was opined that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down for tea under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the contents were not free from the presence of extraneous matter identified as chaff.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide his order of April 8, 1991 discharged the accused holding that there was no sufficient evidence which if remains unrebutted could end in the conviction of the accused.

Feeling aggrieved, the State filed Criminal Revision No. 7 of 10.5.1991, which was heard by Shri Nirmal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot who dismissed the same vide his judgment of August 20, 1991.

The matter did not stop here. The State has again brought this criminal revision petition challenging the order of 6th August, 1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. This revision petition was instituted on 6th of December, 1991. On 26th February, 1992 and applications was filed on behalf of the State with a prayer that the revision petition be treated as an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It has been very fairly conceded by learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab, Mr. Sidhu, that second revision was not maintainable. He submits that due to this reason application with a prayer to treat the revision as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved on behalf of the State.

Mr. Sidhu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the sample of the article of food i.e. tea leaves, having been found to be adulterated, the learned trial Magistrate had gravely erred in not framing the charge against the accused and in discharging him.

Leading of Sections 200 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together would show that a Magistrate has to first examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any and then he shall dismiss the complaint forthwith (i) if he finds that no offence has been committed, or (2) if he distrusts the statement of the complainant and his witnesses examined; and (3) he shall also dismiss if on a consideration of the result of inquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202, he thinks that there is no ground for proceeding. But reasons for dismissal must be briefly recorded.

It is settled law that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate is not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the evidence. He is not required to record detailed reasons. A brief order which indicates the application of mind is all that is expected of him at that stage. He is required to record brief reasons in case after considering the statements on oath under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he forms an opinion that there is no sufficient cause for proceeding.

In this case the learned Magistrate has considered the preliminary evidence comprising of the statements of Jagroop Singh, Government Food Inspector, PW1 and Parveen Kumar, PW2, an affidavit Ex. PK of Bhagwan Dass, report Ex. PL of Director, Central Food Laboratory and report Ex. PF of Public Analyst. He had also examined other documents on record and then came to the conclusion that prima facie case for framing of the charge against the accused was not made out. He had also recorded detailed reasons for his having arrived at such a conclusion. The latest law on the point had also been examined by him and only then he had discharged the accused and dismissed the complaint.

It is evident from the impugned judgments that on analysis of the contents of the sample, the Public Analyst vide report Ex. PF had found the same to be adulterated as it contained one iron nail of 2.6 cm. length equivalent to 2960 parts per million by weight. On the basis of the said report, vide the complaint Ex.PG, the accused, petitioners herein, were sought to be prosecuted originally. On the request of the manufacturers the second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and vide their report Ex. PL, the contents of the sample were found to be free from the presence of extraneous metals identified as the chaffs. On receipt of the said report, the ground that the sample contained one iron nail of 2.6 cm. length equivalent to 2960 parts per million by weight was given a gobye and the accused were sought to be prosecuted on the fresh ground of the presence of chaff in the sample. Naturally in the complaint there is no allegation that the sample was found adulterated due to the presence of chaff and, therefore, the accused could not be prosecuted on the basis of the said allegation. Similar view was taken in the following judgments :

(i) M/s. Lipton India Limited 9 Weston Street, Calcutta v. The State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. 5273M of 1989.

(ii) Ravi Ghai v. The State of Punjab, 1985 PFC 273.

I also find force in the second argument of the learned Counsel to the effect that the tea in question had been supplied to Bakhtawar Lal, respondent No. 1 by the manufacturers, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under a warranty of wholesomeness that the packets contained tea of quality, the dealer was purported to buy and, therefore, the manufacturers having admitted to have supplied the said article of food to the dealer Bakhtawar Lal, he (dealer) could not be held liable for the offence. Section 19(2)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 12A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, envisage that an article of food purchased by a dealter from a licensed manufacture or under a written warranty from such manufacturer regarding its wholesomeness, if found to be adulterate,d the dealer shall not be deemed to have committed any offence under the Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in Chhunga Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1973 Chandigarh Law Reporter 683.

Seen from any angle, I am of the view that the review petition in hand, which was sought to be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was neither maintainable nor had any merit. No fault can be found in the impugned judgments, which are hereby confirmed. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.