Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
For the Petitioner : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP For the Respondent : None
1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.250/2006 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2015:DHC:4525-DB
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Mr. Gian Chand purchased a sample of Dal Moong Dhuli from the respondent on 06.07.2006 at about 06.00 p.m. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts; each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The respondent’s signature was also obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. One counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst in intact condition and two counter parts were deposited with the LHA. Upon analysis it was found that the sample was adulterated as it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. tartrazine. The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(a) & (m) of PFA Act punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and Rules to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. The solitary contention that was raised before the Trial Court was whether the sample taken was representative or not. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that there was vast variation between the report of PA and the Director, CFL which establishes that the sample was not representative.
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the sample was representative. It was observed by the Trial Court in this behalf as follows:-
5. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs. State, 2005 (2) FAC 219, Delhi High Court, the arguments made on behalf of the State by the learned APP that the trial court should have only considered the CFL report and not the PA report holds no water as the perusal of the trial court judgment shows substantial variance in the PA report and CFL report. The excessive presence of damaged and wevilled grains as well as uric acid is delineated in the report of Director CFL however the same is absent in the PA report.
6. Consequently, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has failed to prove that the sample was homogenized and representative and resultantly acquitted the respondent.
7. I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court passed based on the discussion extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the present petition seeking leave to appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 19, 2015 mk