State of Punjab vs Jit Singh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On May 31, 1983, Jagrup Singh, Food Inspector intercepted Jit Singh respondent near Gulabi Bagh, Moga in the presence of Dr. Bhagwan Dass, at about 10.00 A.M. when he was carrying 20 litres of cows'' milk in a drum for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector purchased 660 milliliters of milk as a sample on payment of Rs. 2/ vide receipt Ex PB. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was duly sealed in three dry and clean bottle as per rules after requisite quantity of formalities was added as preservative. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the other two were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Faridkot. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PB found that the sample contained milk fat 4 per cent and milk solid not fat 7.5 percent. It was deficient in milk solids not fat by 12 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard and was, thus, adulterated. On receipt of the report prosecution of the respondent was launched in the Court of Shri G.S. Sewak, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. The respondent was charged for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, After trial the learned trial Court found that the charge against the respondent was proved and, thus, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ vide judgment dated 29.3.1985. Against this judgment Jit Singh preferred an appeal which was accepted by Shri KS. Kauldhar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. He set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent and acquitted him as per judgment dated 4.2.1986 which is assailed by the State of Punjab by way of this agapel.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H.S. Gill and Shri G.S. Gill, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.

During trial the contention of the respondent was that he was not a milkseller and milk found in his possession was not for sale. He was carrying the milk to one of his relatives in connection with some marriage. This contention of the respondent was, however, not supported by any evidence and was, therefore, not taken into consideration by my of the Courts below. The prosecution case primarily rested on the evidence of Jagrup Singh, Food Inspector and Dr. Bhagwan Singh and besides these two official witnesses no other independent witness was joined at the time of taking the sample. The learned lower Appellant Court, therefore, found that there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. We find that the view taken above is correct in view of the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, when the sample was taken 56 persons had come to the spot. There were also some shops near the place where the respondent was intercepted. The shopkeepers were not asked to join the proceedings. The statement of the Food Inspector that he asked some persons to attest the recovery but they refused, cannot be accepted as he was unable to give the name of any person who was contacted in the respect. In the case of State v. Sandhu Singh, A.I.R. 1962 Punjab 548, the following observations were made :

"Provisions like those contained in subsection (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are intended as safeguards not only in the interest of an accused person but also to ensure purity of administration and to guard against victimization of innocent persons. When the law lays down such safeguards, they must be scrupulously observed by the persons concerned. If they are disregarded without adequate reasons, then the conduct of the person whose duty it is to comply with those provisions would certainly arouse suspicion against his bona rides, and accordingly the evidence relating to the taking of samples would have to be subjected to careful scrutiny so as to exclude the possibility of foul play or victimization. In that event, the prosecution would certainly be at a disadvantage as suspicion against the conduct of the Food Inspector concerned may naturally create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution allegations the benefits of the same would go to the accused."

In the instant case also there was ample opportunity for the Food Inspector to join independent witnesses but he did not take any one into confidence. So implicit reliance could not be placed on the statement of two witnesses.

In the present case the sample was taken by Jagrup Singh Food Inspector, Faridkot and he filed the complaint. He produced copy of the notification issued'' by the Health department on 7.9.1972 vide which he was appointed as Food Inspector for the local areas in District Faridkot. This notification was challenged in the case of A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 569 : 1986(2) C.L.R. 697 and it was held to be ultra vires. It was further observed that the Food (Health) Authority and Food Inspector, Faridkot were not competent to file complaint for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The respondent was entitled to acquittal on this ground also that the complaint was not filed by a duly authorised person and the Court could not take cognizance of the offence. The finding of acquittal recorded by the learned lower Appellant Court is, therefore, correct and is hereby affirmed.

For the above mentioned reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.