IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 392/2001 Decided on:7.8.2008 ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Anil Sood and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate vice Mr. R.L. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2 ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The respondents were prosecuted in case No.123-1/2K in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lauhal-Spiti at Kullu under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 16.4.2001 acquitted the accused. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.2001. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 The facts in nutshell as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 24.2.2000 at about 1.15 P.M., Food Inspector Sh. Jagdish Ram inspected the shop of M/s Arun General Store in village Badah, P.O. Mohal, District Kullu. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity in the presence of witness Uttam Singh Thakur PW-2. The accused was served with a notice in form-VI expressing his intention to take the sample of mustard oil (edible oil) for analysis. He purchased 375 gms mustard oil against the payment of Rs. 22/- vide receipt Ex.P-2. The sample was stirred properly clockwise and anti- clockwise. The sample was divided into three parts and put into three clean and dry bottles. The bottles were then properly stoppered, labelled and wrapped in three wrapping papers. The three paper slips bearing code No. KHD and Sr. No.005/2000 with signatures of Local Health Authority, Kullu were pasted with gum from top to bottom around each bottle. These bottles were thereafter tied with strong thread and sealed with sealing wax. Four seals were applied on each bottle as per law and signatures of the accused were obtained in such a way that formed part of sample cover paper slip and wrapper. A panchnama was prepared. One part of the sample and a copy of memo-VII without seal impression were sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat in a sealed reregistered parcel for analysis. Two parts of the sample and two memos of form-VII in duplicate were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Kullu in a sealed packet. The accused was summoned to appear before the Court. Notice of accusation was put to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses to prove its 3 case. The accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial court acquitted the respondent- accused on 16.4.2001. The State has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.2001. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and the judgment dated 16.4.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. K.D. Sood and Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocates have supported the judgment dated 16.4.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. PW-1 is Sh. Jagdish Ram, Food Inspector. He has deposed that he purchased 375 gms mustard oil from the accused No.1 against the payment of Rs. 22/- after properly stirring the same in the tin in which the same was kept by the accused for sale to general public for human consumption and the same was divided into three neat, clean and dry bottles and the bottles were properly sealed stoppered etc. He prepared panchnama Ex.P-3. The sample was found to be adulterated vide report Ex.P-8. PW-2 is Sh. Uttam Singh. He was associated at the time of lifting of the sample. He has deposed that Food Inspector did not wrap or stopper the bottles in his presence. He has admitted his signatures on panchnama Ex.P-3, but denied the same on notice Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2. He has stated that the bottles in which the oil was put by the Food Inspector appeared dirty. He has also deposed that the Food Inspector did not serve any notice upon the 4 accused in his presence though his signatures were obtained on the notice Ex.P-1. He further denied that a sum of Rs. 22/- was paid to the accused. The Food Inspector PW-1 has deposed that he purchased 375 gms mustard oil from the accused after paying Rs. 22/- PW-2 has denied that a sum of Rs. 22/- was paid by the Food Inspector. PW-1 has stated that the bottles were sealed stoppered and wrapped in his presence, however, PW-2 has denied the same. PW-2 has stated that 125 gms of mustard oil was put by the Food Inspector directly from the tin. He has further denied that any slips were affixed or any paper slips were attached to the bottles. He has deposed, as noticed above, that the bottles were dirty. It is evident from the record that the Food Inspector had directly taken the sample of mustard oil from the tin though as per rules, the same should have been divided into three equal parts and then was to be put into three equal parts. He could not directly put the mustard oil into the bottles from the tin. Thus rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was violated. The sample ought to have been taken in the prescribed manner. The statement of PW-1 has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The manner in which the sample has been taken is also doubtful as discussed hereinabove. The trial court on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence has rightly acquitted the respondents. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds are discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 7, 2008. *awasthi*