STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Haryana, against the judgment dated 20.1.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution, Food Inspector Piare Lal Narwal accompanied by Dr. Gyanender Sharma, and one Krishan Lal visited the premises of the accused and had found him in possession of 500/600 pieces of milk ice and 500 pieces of Orange Ice candy, contained in freezing tank meant for public sale. Food Inspector, Piare Lal took sample of Orange Ice candy from the accused respondent after serving Notice Ex. PA. He purchased 18 pieces of Orange Ice candy weighing about 900 grams on payment of Rs. 9/- vide receipt Ex. PB for the purpose of analysis. The said Orange Ice candies were melted in natural way in a neat, clean and dried jug and the melted ice candies were divided into 3 equal parts and poured into three dried and clean bottles. Necessary preservative was added and the bottles were duly sealted etc. in accordance with rules. Spot memo Ex. PC was also prepared. All these documents were duly signed by the accused and the Food Inspector. Form No. VII was prepared at the spot bearing the seals of the Doctor and that of the Food Inspector. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed cover and a copy of Form No. VII was sent separately to the Public Analyst by registered post. The remaining two sample bottles along with copies of Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Ambala, in a sealed cover. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. PE that the sample was found to be adulterated as it gave reducing sugar as sucrose 8.69% against the minimum prescribed standard of 10% and it also contained saccharine from artificial sweetener whereas it should have been free of artificial sweetener. A copy of the report of the Public analyst along with a copy of the forwarding memo were sent to the accused for exercising his right of re-analysis and the complaint was filed in the Court. On appearance in the Court, the accused moved an application for re-analysis of the second sample from the Central Food Laboratory. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, in his certificate Ex. PG also found the sample of Ice Candy to be adulterated. The complainant produced pre-charge evidence. Thereafter, accused was duly charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. After concluding the post charge evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent of the aforesaid charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, State of Haryana filed the present appeal against acquittal in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of Haryana submitted before me that the learned Magistrate erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondent of the aforesaid charge. It was stated that even if there was delay in sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the same would be of no consequence, as the Director had analysed the sample and had given his certificate. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned State counsel. A perusal of the trial Court record would show that the accused-respondent had moved an application dated 1.6.1990 for directing the Local Health Authority to produce the second part of the sample for sending the same for re-analysis. On the same day i.e. on 1.6.1990, there is an endorsement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the said application had been filed in his Court as the Chief Judicial Magistrate was on tour and the said application was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for necessary action. The trial Court record would further show that the complaint was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.5.1990 and the accused was summoned for 14.9.1990, on which date the accused appeared in the Court and was released on bail and the case was adjourned for consideration of charge and consideration etc. Vide order dated 15.11.1991, the Government Food Inspector was directed to produce the second part of the sample in the Court for transmission for re-analysis purpose and the case was adjourned to 10.1.1992, on which date after noticing that the sample had not been produced by the Food Inspector and an adjournment was requested, the case was adjourned to 7.2.1992 for producing the second part of the sample, on which date again the sample was not produced and the case was adjourned to 6.3.1992. However, the sample was not produced even on the next date i.e. on 15.5.1992 and the case was adjourned to 3.7.1992. Thereafter, the sample was not produced even on 17.7.1992 and the case was adjourned to 7.8.1992. On 14.8.1992, two parts of the sample were produced out of which one was found broken while the third part of the sample was found to be duly sealed. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.8.1992, third part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. It was thereafter that the Director, Central Food Laboratory sent his certificate after re-analysing the sample. As per the said certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ex. PG, he had received the sample on 21.8.1992 along with memo dated 14.8.1992 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.