State v. Joginder Lal & Ors.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th March, 2010 dismissing the 0 revision petition and the judgment dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in PFA Case No. 166/99 discharging the Respondent.

2. Learned APP for the State contends that the learned Judges without appreciating the evidence passed the impugned judgments on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after issuing the notice to the Respondent discharged them summarily without asking the Petitioner to lead any evidence. Thus, the CRL.M.C. No. 226412010 Pagel o/4 2011:DHC:9685 impugned orders are liable to be set aside. / )

3. Lea1ned counsel for the Respondent states that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the conclusion reached by the learned Judge is based upon the report ofthe Director, CFL which supersedes the report of the public analyst. The judgment is well-reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the pruiies and perused the record. Briefly the facts ofthe case are that on 22nd July, 1999 at about 1:45 p.m. Food Inspector A.K. Singh purchased a sample of dhania powder for analysis from Sh. Joginder Lal at Mis Satish Provisional Store, Shop No. 25, Netaji Nagar Market, New Delhi who was carrying the business ofthe said food article at the time of sampling. The sample consisted of 325 gnus of the food article. The sample was taken from a sealed polybag bearing identical label declaration. The sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was put in a separate clean and dry bottle and each ofit was packed separately, fastened and sealed as per the provisions of PFA Act and Rules. Vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. It is stated that before starting the proceedings, efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none crune forward. All the documents were got signed from the Respondent ru1d other witnesses. The srunple was taken under the supervision CRL.M.C. No. 226412010 oflocal health authorities. One ofthe three samples was got deposited with th[6] public analyst with seals intact. The other two counter-parts ofthe sample were deposited with the local health authority. On analysis ofthe sample, the Public Analyst found that the sample does not conform to the standards. The Respondent exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and requested to get the second counterpart sample to be analysed from the Director CFL. The report submitted by the Director CFL observed that the dhania powder is adulterated due to presence of turmeric starch. Thereafter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the parties discharged the Respondent. This order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged which revision petition was dismissed by the lea1ned Additional Sessions Judge. The same is impugned in the present petition.

5. On a perusal ofthe report ofthe Director, CFL dated 4th January, 2000 it is apparent that the only test conducted was a microscopical examination which opined that the food article was adulterated with few turmeric starches, no other chemical test of the said food aiiicle was conducted. The Hon'ble Supreme Comi in Jagdish Chander vs. State ofU.P. 1981, Vol.I. PFA Case 33 held that where the sample of dalchini had not undergone the chemical test but it was only examined under a microscope, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. It was fmiher held that mere ocular examination cannot asce1iain with CRL.M.C. No. 226412010 any degree ofaccuracy, the ingredients such as ash insoluble in HCL or volatile 7 oil or moisture. Also this Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Janta Sudh Masala Stores & Ors., 2008 (1) JCC 586 held that a physical examination without chemical test having been conducted and the precise nature of organic matter also having not been specified is insufficient to prove the prosecution case which must fail. Similarly, in the case at hand the only test conducted was a microscopic examination of the food article and not a chemical test. The precise nature or content of the same has also not been specified. Thus, the benefit of doubt has been rightly granted to the Respondent by the leained Metropolitan Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back.