In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 661 of 1994 Date of decision: April 28, 2008 Sunil Kumar ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna,Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A. N. Jindal, J The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 11.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 11.8.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot convicting him under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. On 14.6.1990 at about 10.30 am, C.S. Brar, Food Inspector intercepted the accused-petitioner Sunil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') at Kot Kapura Road near Jublie Cinema, Faridkot while he was carrying 50 liters of Cow milk meant for sale. After disclosing his identity and serving notice, he purchased 750 MLs of cow milk for Rs.4/- for analysis after stirring the contents of the said drum. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and after adding necessary preservatives put the same in three clean and dry bottles. The samples were stoppered, labelled and wrapped with strong thick paper and sealed with the seal bearing impression “BBA”. One sample along with Form No.VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh in sealed container, whereas the Crl. Revision No. 661 of 1994 -2- *** copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal were sent separately through special messenger. The remaining two samples along with forms were deposited with the Local Health Authority Faridkot. The Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh found the sample to be deficient in milk solids not fat by 7.0% of the minimum prescribed standard. On the application of the respondent, the other part of the sample was sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, according to whose certificate milk solids not fat contents fell below the specified limit of 8.5%. On receipt of the report, complaint was presented in the court. Notice of accusation under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act was served upon the respondent to which he opted for trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. C.S. Brar (PW1), Des Raj (PW2), Parveen Kumar Clerk (PW3) and Dr. S.K. Bansal (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondent denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. He further explained that he was carrying on the business of video library as well as cycle repairs at Kameana Gate, Faridkot and that he had quarrelled with Mr. C.S. Brar on account of non payment of charges of cassette, consequently in order to have vengeance, he launched this false complaint against him. Sat Pal Singla (DW-1) was examined in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prime contention raised is that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act by non joining of independent witness. He has further pointed out certain discrepancies in the statements of Dr. C.S. Brar (PW1) and Dr. S.K. Bansal (PW4) regarding their departure from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Faridkot, the number of samples purchased on that day and the completion of the writing work. He has also urged that due procedure was not followed by the Food Inspector at the time of taking the sample. Having deliberated over the aforesaid contentions, no merit could be detected therein. The complaint reveals that the Food Inspector Crl. Revision No. 661 of 1994 -3- *** had asked 4-5 persons to join them as witnesses but none of them showed their willingness. Ultimately, Dr. S.K. Bansal was joined in order to pursue the investigation. These two witnesses are quite consistent in their statements regarding time, place and the manner and method of taking the sample. Nothing could come to surface to dub them as interested witnesses. They have withstood the test of cross examination well and nothing could be elicited from their statements. As regards the discrepancies pointed out in the testimonies of the witnesses that according to the complainant C.S. Brar, he took samples from 13-14 persons on that day, whereas, according to Dr. S.K. Bansal, they purchased sample from six persons; according to the complainant official jeep dropped them at the place and was brought back after taking the samples while according to Dr. S.K. Bansal, the said jeep remained standing and whole of the writing work was done while sitting in it. Having pondered over the aforesaid contentions, the discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not of such serious nature so as to effect the substratum of the prosecution case. It may further be observed that samples were taken on 14.6.1990 and the complaint was presented in the Court on 6.10.1990 and soon before, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent and the petitioner appeared in the Court on 22.10.1990 and availed the opportunity under Section 13 (2) of the Act for sending the sample to the Director Central Food Laboratory,. He did not disclose his plea of false implication on account of the enmity with the Food Inspector until the Food Inspector was cross examined on 10.5.1993 which he outrightly refuted. As regards the vocation of the accused, it may be observed that the accused himself gave his address as “Sunil Kumar Milk Vendor son of Walaiti Ram, Inder Sain Walaiti Ram Cycle Works, College Road, (Near Huki Wala Chowk), Faridkot (C/o Singla Video Library, Kameana Gate, Faridkot)”. A bare perusal of the address shows that the accused was a milk vendor and he could only be served care of Singla Video Library. The report of the Public Analyst Ex.PE clearly shows that the contents of the sample were deficient in milk solids not fat by 7.0% of the minimum prescribed standard. The petitioner also got re-analyzed the Crl. Revision No. 661 of 1994 -4- *** second part of the sample from the Director Central Food Library, Mysore, who vide his report dated 29.11.1990 opined that the contents of the milk solid not fat fell below the minimum specified limit of 8.5%. No evidence to the contrary has been led in defence. Thus, both the reports confirm the fact that the sample so purchased from the accused was adulterated. Consequently, findings recording conviction of the petitioner by the two courts below, having not suffered from any illegality, could be maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner in the year 1990 and he faced trial for 3 years before the Magistrate, his appeal remained pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and thereafter, the proceedings are pending before this Court. The petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the longevity of the proceedings for the last more than 15 years. No previous bad antecedents have been brought forward by the learned Deputy Advocate General. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is extended benefit of probation. Consequently, while dismissing the petition, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds he shall be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, sentence of fine is converted into costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for compliance. April 28, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge