State of Punjab vs Bhola Singh

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 05.11.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby the complaint filed u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, the 1954 Act'') against respondent Bhola Singh, has been dismissed. Brief facts of this case are that on 27.05.2000, at about 8.00 am, Shri Manoj Khosla, Govt. Food Inspector along with Dr. S.K. Sinha, intercepted Bhola Singh, a milk vendor, on a bicycle at Amloh Road, Khanna, who was found in possession of about 50 kgs. cow milk, meant for sale for human consumption. After disclosing his identity and serving notice in Form VI, the complainant demanded sample of cow milk. Before purchasing milk, it was made homogenous by stirring with a plunger in a drum and then 750 mls. milk was purchased on payment of Rs. 7.50 paise against proper receipt. Sample was divided into three equal parts, put into three dry and clean glass bottles, which were stoppled tightly, labelled and wrapped. Signatures slip of Local Health Authority bearing seal No. 85976 and code No. RKS/2000/60 was pasted on each sample length wise, covering top and bottom of the sample and adjoining its end. Spot memo. was prepared. One sample along with memo. in form VII with specimen impression of seal in a sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst through Malkiat Singh, Class IV employee and another sample seal was separately sent to the Public Analyst through the same messenger. The remaining two sealed parcels with a copy of Form VII in sealed packets, were deposited with Local Health Authority on the same day. As per report of the Public Analyst, the contents of sample contains pre added formalin and found to be unfit for human consumption and adulterated.

After securing presence of the accused, pre charge evidence, consisting of statements of complainant Manoj Khosla, Food Inspector (PW1), Malkiat Singh, Class IV employee (PW2) and Raghbir Singh, Sampling Clerk (PW3) were recorded. Finding a prima facie case, the respondent was charged for offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act. The aforesaid PWs appeared in the dock for their cross examination after charge.

On the evidence of the prosecution being closed, the accused was examined in compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr. P.C., through which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded his false implication and innocence.

However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.

I have heard counsel for the State and gone through the case file.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court would reveal that the respondent has been acquitted of the offence charged against him, primarily, on two counts. Firstly, failure of the prosecution to prove compliance with mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the 1954 Act; and Secondly, competency of Shri Manoj Khosla, Food Inspector to draw sample and to file the complaint.

Counsel for the appellant State fails to invite attention of this Court to any material on record, sufficient to substantiate the plea of the appellant that the findings recorded by the trial Court in regard to violation of mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the 1954 Act being erroneous or the result of misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. The learned trial Court has recorded a finding that as per postal receipt qua sending information to the respondent regarding report of the Public Analyst, no proper address of the respondent was mentioned thereon in order to raise an inference that the letter was duly addressed and the same in due course of postal process must have reached the addressee. It is an admitted fact that the said intimation was not tendered to the respondent in person by any official of the Public Health Authority. As the complainant has failed to adduce satisfactory much less cogent and convincing evidence on record that the letter giving information to the respondent in regard to the contents of the report of the Public Analyst was duly addressed much less actually received by the respondent, no fault can be found in the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act which entitles the respondent to get benefit of doubt. This apart, the prosecution did not produce on record any notification issued by the State Government authorizing Shri Manoj Khosla, to draw sample of food within the local area in which the respondent was intercepted. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the appellant that Manoj Khosla was competent to institute a complaint under the 1954 Act.

Before parting with this order, it is appropriate to mention that scope of interference in a judgment of acquittal stands on a different footings than that of intervention in a judgment of conviction. The Appellate Court is not required to interfere, if on appraisal of evidence, two views are possible because in that eventuality, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed in limine.