Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.359/2015
FOODINSPECTOR
Petitioner through: Mr.RajatKatyal,APP
Respondent
Through: Mr.Tatini Basu,Advocate
ORDER o/„ 20.01.2017
With the consentofparties,leave granted.
Crl.A. ^ 72017 Ito be registered and numbered!
Letthe appealberegistered and numbered.
The State has preferred the present appeal againstthejudgment dated
14.09.2011 passed by the learned ACMM-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in case No. 134/04 titled,'Food Inspector Vs. Gobind Goenka and anr.'. By the impugned
JUDGMENT
Food Inspector preferred the complaintin respect ofseveral violations. The complaintwas made under Rules29&32(b)(e)&(i)and Section 2(ia)(a)(j)
&(m)and Section 2(ix)ofPFA Act,1954,punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7ofthe Act of1954.
2017:DHC:8591 The submission of Mr. Katyal is that the learned ACMM has not returned any finding with regard to the complaint premised on violation of
Rules 24, 32(b),(e) and (i) and Rule 42(ZZZ)l of the Food Adulteration
Rules which relate to misbranding. Learned ACMM has, firstly, held the reportofthe Director,CFL,regarding the chemical analysis ofthe sample to be unreliable on account ofthe fact that it discloses that the analysis had taken place with effect from "31-4-9-2004 to 09.09.04". The date of the certificate itself was 04.09.2004. Thus,it was not clear as to when exactly the samples were analysed. Moreover,the analysis reportpertains to sample of65 pouches, whereas, only six sealed packets ofcommodity in question were lifted for the purpose ofsamples and the same were divided into three counter parts oftwo packets each. The trial court has held that it is not clear as to on whatbasisthe CFL has reported thatthere were65 pouches.
The report ofCFL also shows a substantial variation from the report ofthe PA in relation to Saccharine. In the report ofthe PA 'Saccharine' is shown present to the extent of 360 PPM against the permissible limit of
4000 PPM. Whereas, in the report of the Director, CFL,the presence of Saccharine is quantified to the extent of2634 PPM, which is more than 7 times in comparison to the PA's findings. The PA's report shows the presence of5 synthetic colours in the given sample commodity, whereas, as per the Certificate ofthe Director, CFL,there were 4 colours present in the given sample counterpart. In view ofthe decision ofthis Courtin KanshiNath v. State,2005(2) FAC 219,in relation to the aforesaid aspects,the impugnedjudgment cannot be faulted and does not call for interference. Atthe same time,it cannot be disputed thatthe learned ACMM has not returned any finding with regard to /o the alleged misbranding on account ofRules 24,32(b),(e)and(i)and Rule 42(ZZZ)l ofthe Food Adulteration Rules. In view ofthe aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded back to the court of learned ACMM for proceeding with the complaintin relation to the alleged violation ofthe aforesaid rules. The appeal stands disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned CMM on 12.02.2017. The trial court record, if requisitioned,be sent back forthwith.. VIPIN SANGHI,J JANUARY 20,2017 si