Food Inspector/Food Safety Officer v. Mahabir

10. The trial court in para 13 of the impugned judgment has discussed the result of respective reports of the Public Analyst and Director CFL. The Court observed that the public analyst vide her report found the sample to be adulterated because of being coloured with synthetic colouring matter namely Tartrazine and also found admixture of Khesari. The Director CFL also found the sample to have been coloured with synthetic colour viz. Tartrazine and besides this nothing else was detected. It was further observed by the trial court that there are as many as three tests where the opinion of both the experts i.e. the public analyst and the Director, CFL, are contradictory to each other. In public analyst’s report foreign matter organic, damaged grains and other food grains were found to the tune of 0.06%, 0.35% and 0.16%, respectively, whereas the Director CFL adjudged all of them NIL. Moreover, the public analyst conducted paper chromatographic method and found Khesari present therein whereas the Director, CFL, has not conducted any such test and as such there is no mentioning about the Khesari. Apart from the above mentioned contradictions, there were also variations as far as moisture value was concerned. The public analyst found the moisture to the tune of 8.19% whereas the Director CFL found the same to the tune of 9.98% i.e. 1.79% more than that of public analyst’s findings.

11. The trial court has further considered that in State v. Rama Rattan Malhotra, Crl.L.P. 581/2011, relying upon the case titled as State v. Mahender Kumar & ors., Crl.A.No.54/1990, the appeal of the State was dismissed. In State v. Mahender Kumar & Ors., reported at 2008 (1) FAC 177, a reference was made to the case of Kanshi Nath v. State, reported at 2005 (2) FAC 219 DHC, and it was reiterated that if on comparison of the report of public analyst and CFL unacceptable variations are shown in two samples then it cannot be said that the samples were representative and consequently the accused would be entitled to an acquittal.

12. The law with regard to the grant of leave is well settled by a catena of judgments. Leave to Appeal can be granted only where it is shown that the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are perverse or there is misapplication of law or any legal principle. The High Court cannot entertain a petition merely because another view is possible or that another view is more plausible. In Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Anr., 2009 (10) SCC 206, while referring with approval the earlier judgment in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles which must be kept in mind by the High Court while entertaining an Appeal against acquittal. The principles are:-

13. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to draw a distinction between the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State v. Rattan Malhotra (supra) and the present case. Admittedly, the variation in the report is more than 0.3% with respect to content of moisture.

14. Having regard to the facts of this case, the same is fully covered by the decision rendered in Kanshi Nath v. State, reported at 2005 (2) FAC 219 Delhi High Court; State v. Mahender Kumar & Ors., reported at 2008 (1) FAC 177; State (Delhi Administration) v. Ram Singh & Anr., reported (2009) 1 FAC 371, wherein it has been held that if on comparison of the reports of Public Analyst and CFL unacceptable variations are found, then it cannot be said that the samples were representative and consequently the accused would be entitle to an acquittal.

15. In view of the above and taking into consideration the general principles set out in the case of Arulvelu and Anr. (Supra), no grounds are made out to entertain the present leave to appeal petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. G.S.SISTANI, J DECEMBER 02, 2013 msr