Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Sushil Kumar was running a grocery shop (Karyana shop) under the name and style of M/s Goyal Provision Store near Pooja Filling Station, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cant. On 7.8.1990 at about 11.30 A.M., premises of the accused were inspected by Piare Lal, Government Food Inspector, who was accompanied by Dr. Gianender Sharma. Petitioner was found in possession of 5 Kgs. of Lal Mirch Powder for public sale. The Lal Mirch Powder was lying in a Peepa (tin-can). After giving notice Ex.PA to the Petitioner, the Government Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of chilli powder by making payment of Rs. 12/-. The sample, in consonance with the procedure prescribed, was drawn and was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst opined that sample gave total Ash 10.30% and Ash insoluble in dilute Hcl 2.04% against the maximum prescribed standard of 8% and 1.3%, respectively, and Grit 2.5%. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the Government Food Inspector instituted a complaint against the accused. A notice u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "1954 Act") was sent to the Petitioner who, on appearance, filed an application for getting the second sample analyzed from Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, concluded as under:

Sample does not conform to the standards laid down for chilies (Lal Mirch) powder under the provisions of PFA Act 1954 and Rules thereof in that:

a) Moisture content exceeds the maximum specified limit of 12.0% by weight.

b) Total ash content exceeds the maximum specified limit of 8% by weight.

c) The amount of ash insoluble in dilute HCL exceed the maximum specified limit of 1.3% by weight.

d) The amount of non-volatile either extract falls below the minimum specified limit of 12.0% by weight.

e) Crude Fiber content exceeds the maximum specified limit of 30.0% by weight.

It is well settled legal position that report of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of Public Analyst. Piare Lal, Government Food Inspector, appeared as PW.1 and his statement in pre-charge evidence was recorded. Thereafter, he appeared for cross-examination.

Dr. Gianender Sharma appeared as PW.2.

The trial Court relied upon the testimony of Piare Lal, Government Food Inspector, PW.1 and Dr. Gianender Sharma, PW.2. The argument that independent witness, who was associated at the time of taking sample, was not examined, therefore, same is fatal to prosecution, was not accepted.

The trial Court convicted the Petitioner for offence u/s 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Aggrieved against the same, Petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed.

In the present case, sample was taken in the year 1990. About 20 years are going to elapse. Taking the protracted trial as mitigating circumstance as is normally done, this Court may have reduced the sentence to already undergone. But in the present case, on the same day, a sample of Pooja Salt was also drawn and the same was also found adulterated. The Petitioner was also tried in a separate case and was also convicted for one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The revision petition, originating from that criminal case bearing Criminal Revision No. 2426 of 2003, is also listed today.

Taking pendency of two cases, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of reduction of sentence to already undergone, to the Petitioner. However, taking this fact into consideration that Petitioner is in corridors of the Court from the last 20 years, sentence of one year awarded upon the Petitioner is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, this sentence shall run concurrent with the sentence awarded in the case from which Criminal Revision No. 2426 of 2003 has originated.

With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.