State of Punjab vs Hazara Singh

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present respondent, Hazara Singh, was tried in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar for having committed an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act). The said Court acquitted him. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has come to this Court in appeal.

Brief case of prosecution is that on 22.8.1979, at 9.20 a.m., PW1 Dr. Gian Singh, exercising the powers of Food Inspector, was present in Nangal, PW2 Dr. Manmohan Singh was with him. The respondent was seen coming on a bicycle; carrying a drum. He was stopped. The drum was found to contain 25 kg of cow milk for sale. Dr. Gian Singh disclosed his identity to the respondent. He purchased 660 ml. of milk from the respondent, after observing the formalities, prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed there under. He divided the purchased milk into 3 equal parts and put each part in one dry and clean bottle. 18 drops of formalise were added to each bottle as a preservative. The bottles were then stoppered, sealed and wrapped in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who, vide his report Ex. PE, opined that the sample milk contained 4.4.% milk Fat, while Milksolidsnotfat were deficient by 22.0 per cent, as their contents in the milk was only 6.6%. Thus in the opinion of the public Analyst, the milk was adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, PW1 Dr. Gian Singh lodged prosecution against the respondent.

At the close of the prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that Bhagat Singh, his covillager, had brought milk, after collecting it from the village. It was to be delivered at the Langar of Gurdwara Bhagaur Sahib. It was not meant for sale. Bhagat Singh told the Food Inspector that he was taking milk as donation to the Gurdwara and therefore, no sample could be taken. Bhagat Singh had a quarrel with the Food Inspector. He (i.e. respondent) also asked him not to take the sample. He was not carrying any milk nor was any sample taken from him. PW2 Dr. Manmohan Singh was not present at the time of the alleged incident.

In his defence, the respondent examined DW1 Gurdial Singh who is Sewader in Gurdwara Bhagaur Sahib. He simply stated that Hazara Singh, Bhagat Singh and other have been offering milk, wheat and grain to the Langar of the said Gurdwara for the last so many years. He also stated that the respondent does not sell milk.

The learned trial Court found discrepancies in the statements of PW1 Dr. Gian Singh and PW2 Dr. Manmohan Singh and held that it was doubtful if the sample was taken by PW1 Dr. Gian Singh from the respondent. He further held that even if the prosecution story was taken at its face value, it had failed to establish its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt as the discrepancy was only in milk solids not fat and it could be due to the imbalance in the fodder or the test by the Public Analyst was erroneous.

After hearing Shri Bachittar Singh, learned Advocate for the Advocate General, Punjab, we have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the learned trial Court that it was doubtful that the sample was taken by PW1 Dr. Gian Singh from the respondent is a reasonable one, It is to be noticed that the respondent has denied the fact that he was carrying any milk for sale or any sample was taken from him by the Food Inspector. PW1 Dr. Gian Singh has stated that the respondent was seen coming on a bicycle, with a drum, when he was stopped. However, PW2 Dr. Maomohan Singh has stated that he, along with Dr. Gian Singh; was present at the Bus Stand, Nangal when the respondent was found taking down a drum, containing 25 kg milk, from the bus. It is a material discrepancy and cannot be overlooked. From this discrepancy, only two inferences can be drawn and those are that either the respondent was not intercepted in the manner stated by PW1 Dr. Gian Singh or PW2 Dr. Manmohan Singh was not present at the time the sample is said to have been taken by PW1 Dr. Gian Singh from the respondent. Thus, it cannot be aid that the view taken by the learned trial Court that the prosecution story about the taking of the sample from the respondent was doubtful, was manifestly perverse.

Their Lordships in Bhagirath Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR (sic) SC 924 have observed as under :

"This Court has time and again emphasised that although the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal are as extensive as in an appeal against conviction. It should, before reversing an acquittal pay due regard to the reasons given by the trial Court in support of the order of acquittal and try to dispel the same in a general or specific way. It should also bear in mind that the initial presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person is in no way weakened, if not reinforced by his acquittal at the trial. Due weight must also be given to the opinion of the trial Court as to the value of the oral evidence rendered by the oral witnesses because the trial Court had the advantage of observing the demaeanour of the witnesses appearing before it. If two conclusions can be reasonably reached on the same evidence, one of which supports the acquittal, then the High Court should stay its hands from interfering with the order of the trial Court. The case before us is of this category."

As the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is not unreasonable, we do not find any ground to interfere with its order.

Shri Bachittar Singh, learned Advocate, appearing for the Advocate General, Punjab, argued that the view taken by the learned trial Court on the legal points is opposed to the observations made by this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 PLR 433 and State of Haryana v. Kalu, 1979 CLR (Pb & Hr.) 257. The argument of the learned counsel has force. However, we do not want to dilate on this point in detail as. on facts, as noticed earlier, the prosecution case is doubtful.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same.

Sd/ B.S. Yadav, Judge.

I agree Sd/ K.S. Tiwana, Judge.