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 22.07.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.54/02 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2015:DHC:4381-DB
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta purchased a sample of Masoor Dal from the respondent on 15.03.2002 at about
04.00 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. Sunset Yellow FCF. The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(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 relied upon the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs. State, 2005 (2) FAC 219, Delhi High Court, wherein it was held as follows:- “............. To this extent, the argument raised by Mr. Sharma that once the certificate of the Director, CFL is obtained, then that is final and conclusive and the Public Analyst's report cannot be looked into at all for any purpose whatsoever, is not quite tenable. If the variation in the two reports is substantial enough, then the Public Analyst's report can certainly be looked into to establish this variation so as to support the contention of the petitioner that the sample was not representative. As indicated above, the Director, CFL who was examined as CW-1 in cross-examination, has clearly stated that if the content of common salt as quantified by the two experts would have a variation of more than- Y.3% then the samples would not be representative. This is an opinion of an expert and one has to go by it. In the facts of the present case, we find that the variation, as indicated above, is more thanY.3%. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, it can be said that 7 the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be sustained.”
5. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision of this court in Kanshi Nath (supra), 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:-
6. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath (supra) 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 ground as the perusal of the trial court judgment shows substantial variance in the PA report and CFL report. The PA report reveals that the sample was adulterated with synthetic colour matter i.e. sunset yellow FCF. The same has been found absent in the report of the Director, CFL. The State has not explained the said variance.
7. 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.
8. 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 15, 2015 dn