State of Punjab vs Prem Kumar

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 1831982 Dr. Rupinder Kumar who was vested with the powers of Food Inspector went to the shop of Prem Kumar respondent situated in the area of Talwandi Sabo. He was accompanied by Dr. Mewa Ram Singla and Kishan Chand Food Inspectors. The respondent was present at his shop and he was found in possession of 10 kilograms of rice for sale. After serving a notice Dr. Rupinder Kumar purchased 600 grams of rice which were divided into three equal parts. Each part was sealed in a polythene bag. One sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst and the other two packets wore deposited with local Health Authority. After analysing the sample the Public Analyst made his report Ex. P to the effect that the contents of the sample contained six dead insects. On receipt of this report prosecution of the respondent was launched in the Court of Shri Hardial Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda and the respondent was tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

In support of its case the complainant Dr. Rupinder Kumar made his own statement and also examined Buta Singh as PW. 2. The contention of the respondent when examined under Section 313 Cr. PC was that all the allegations against him were false. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

After perusing the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties the learned trial Court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the article from which sample was taken was injurious to health and as such was substandard. The respondent was, thus, acquitted vide judgment dated 891984 which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by means of this appeal.

We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant, Shri J.R. Mittal, Advocate, with Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the records.

The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the report of the Public Analyst and contended that the Public Analyst had found that the sample of rice was infested by insects so it was to be presumed that it was adulterated and injurious to health and even if the report of the Public Analyst was silent on that point the respondent could not be acquitted of the charge. In support of his contention he referred to the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Tek Chand, Bhatia. AIR 1980 Supreme Court 360 according to which the words or is otherwise unfit for human consumption found in Section 2(1)(b) of the Prevention. of Food Adulteration Act were quite separate and distinct from the words `filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed and insect infested. The word `otherwise'' simplifies unfitness for human consumption due to other causes. It was further found that if the last portion is meant to mean something different it becomes difficult to understand how the word `or'' as used, in the definition could have been intended to be used conjunctively, It would be more appropriate in this context to read it disjunctively. We find that this authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The above mentioned case related to a sample of cashewnuts for which there was no statutory provision prescribed for any minimum standards of purity and it was, therefore, for the Court to decide upon the evidence in the case whether the insect infestation found was of such a nature and extent as to make it unfit for human consumption. In the instant case the sample taken by the Food inspector was of rice and only six deed insects were found. The rice grains were not affected in any manner. Before the rice is taken it is washed properly and then cooked. As such it could not be said that insectinfested rice was injurious to health. The learned trial Court referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Rama Nand, 1982 Criminal Law Journal 1370 which is quite relevant for deciding the question in issue. Sample of turmeric was taken in this case which was found insectinfested to the extent of 7.7 per cent as against the maximum prescribed standard of 5 per cent but the report of the Public Analyst was silent whether the article was unfit for human consumption or otherwise injurious or noninjurious to health. It was held the accused could not be convicted. Considering these circumstances we find that the acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court was proper.

As a result we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.