Full Text
Translation output
a
@
R-1
Q
22.07.20LL
Present: Ms. R. Pattanayak, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Lau, Additional
State.
Crl. Rev. (P) No.9/2OO8
The challenge herein petitioner for the offences under
Section 16(1) and Section 7
Adulteration Act. for the Petitioner.
Public Prosecutor for the is to the conviction of the
Section 2(ia)(a)(m) read with of the Prevention of Food
, On 9th August 1988, a raiding team of the Respondent lifted sample of Atta from Petitioner's shop and upon its analysis, by Public Analyst, it was found to contain alcoholic acidity of
0.23o/o, which exceeded the prescribed limit of 0.I8%. Petitioner had exercised his right under section l'3(2) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act and as per the report of Director CFSL, Mysore, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.83% and sample was to be found 'insect infected' and not free from presence of foreign substance identified as 'corn starch'.
During trial, Food Inspector M.K. Gupta (pw-l), LHA
M.R. Grover (PW-2), Food Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-3) and Public witness Mr. Avtar Singh had deposed and on conclusion of the
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 Page | 1
2011:DHC:19829
']' trial, Petitioner was awarded the minimum sentence of six months with fine, which was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal.
On behalf of the petitioner, the basic ground urged is that the sample was not properly drawn. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner has referred to the deposition of Food Inspector M.K.
Gupta (PW-I) to point out that the vital admission has been made by this witness in cross examination regarding the sample bottles being not properly cleaned and there being no provision of sample or their counterpart being kept in refrigerator while being preserved before being sent for analysis, After having heard both the sides, and upon perusal of the evidence on record and the decisions in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi vs. Jagat Narain and State, 1980 (1) FAC L40;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Bishan Sarup, L972 FAC 273;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kumar and Anr., 1980 (1)
FAC2B7; Sukhdev Kumar ys. State of Punjab,2005 FAJ 281, I find that Food Inspector M.K. Gupta (PW-1) has made categoric admission in his cross-examination, which is as under:-
"Knowingly that Atta is a perishable article I did not fumigate/sterilize the empty bottles before putting the Atta into them nor did I used any preservative or insecticide before s.ealing the bottles.
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 l.t
@
R-1
Q
22.07.20LL
Present: Ms. R. Pattanayak, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Lau, Additional
State.
Crl. Rev. (P) No.9/2OO8
The challenge herein petitioner for the offences under
Section 16(1) and Section 7
Adulteration Act. for the Petitioner.
Public Prosecutor for the is to the conviction of the
Section 2(ia)(a)(m) read with of the Prevention of Food
, On 9th August 1988, a raiding team of the Respondent lifted sample of Atta from Petitioner's shop and upon its analysis, by Public Analyst, it was found to contain alcoholic acidity of
0.23o/o, which exceeded the prescribed limit of 0.I8%. Petitioner had exercised his right under section l'3(2) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act and as per the report of Director CFSL, Mysore, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.83% and sample was to be found 'insect infected' and not free from presence of foreign substance identified as 'corn starch'.
During trial, Food Inspector M.K. Gupta (pw-l), LHA
M.R. Grover (PW-2), Food Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-3) and Public witness Mr. Avtar Singh had deposed and on conclusion of the
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 Page | 1
2011:DHC:19829
']' trial, Petitioner was awarded the minimum sentence of six months with fine, which was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal.
On behalf of the petitioner, the basic ground urged is that the sample was not properly drawn. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner has referred to the deposition of Food Inspector M.K.
Gupta (PW-I) to point out that the vital admission has been made by this witness in cross examination regarding the sample bottles being not properly cleaned and there being no provision of sample or their counterpart being kept in refrigerator while being preserved before being sent for analysis, After having heard both the sides, and upon perusal of the evidence on record and the decisions in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi vs. Jagat Narain and State, 1980 (1) FAC L40;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Bishan Sarup, L972 FAC 273;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kumar and Anr., 1980 (1)
FAC2B7; Sukhdev Kumar ys. State of Punjab,2005 FAJ 281, I find that Food Inspector M.K. Gupta (PW-1) has made categoric admission in his cross-examination, which is as under:-
"Knowingly that Atta is a perishable article I did not fumigate/sterilize the empty bottles before putting the Atta into them nor did I used any preservative or insecticide before s.ealing the bottles.
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 l.t
c
There is no provision of the refrigerator in the department to keep the counter part of the sample."
Before the Courts below, the primary contention of the sample bottles were being not clean and dried, was urged and noticed but on the perusal of the impugned
There is no provision of the refrigerator in the department to keep the counter part of the sample."
Before the Courts below, the primary contention of the sample bottles were being not clean and dried, was urged and noticed but on the perusal of the impugned
JUDGMENT
, I find that the aforesaid deposition of Food Inspector M.K. Gupta, (PW-1), has not been considered. In this view of the matter, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State could not justify the conviction of the petitioner. Thus, it goes without saying that the insect infestation of the second sample was clearly due to improper preservation of the sample, as it is matter of record that the first sample analyzed by the Public Analyst was not found to be insect infected. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order convicting the petitioner while holding that the samples were not properly drawn resulting in the increase in alcoholic acidity and of the sample being infected.
The revision petition stands allowed luly 22,?OLL pkb
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 Page | 3
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State could not justify the conviction of the petitioner. Thus, it goes without saying that the insect infestation of the second sample was clearly due to improper preservation of the sample, as it is matter of record that the first sample analyzed by the Public Analyst was not found to be insect infected. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order convicting the petitioner while holding that the samples were not properly drawn resulting in the increase in alcoholic acidity and of the sample being infected.
The revision petition stands allowed luly 22,?OLL pkb
Crl. Rev.P. No.9/2008 Page | 3