Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002 Date of decision:6th May, 2009 Pawan Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab for respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.1999, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, convicting him under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner also challenges the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 15.12.2001. The facts in brief are that Dr. Charanjit Garg, Food Inspector, filed a complaint that on 14.02.1996, at about 9:15 A.M, he inspected the premises of the petitioner Pawan Kumar and found him in possession of 35 Kilograms of cow’s milk stored in a drum for sale for human consumption. The complainant disclosed his identity by serving a notice in form no. VI as prescribed by the rules and purchased 750 grams of cow’s milk for Rs. 7.50 paise. After stirring the milk to make it homogeneous, it was divided into three equal parts. It was poured into three separate dry and clean bottles, after 1 Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002 adding 20 drops of 40% formaline as preservative. Each bottle was stoppered, securely fastened, labelled and then wrapped with a strong thick paper which was folded and pasted with gum. A slip signed by the local health authority, Bathinda, was pasted on the wrapper of each bottle. The signatures of the accused were obtained on each bottle and one sealed bottle was sent to the public analyst, Punjab, through a special messenger. The two remaining parts of the sample were deposited with the local health authority, Bathinda. The sample was taken in the presence of Dr. Vivek Jain, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Nathana. A report was received from the Public Analyst, which disclosed that the sample did not meet the prescribed parameter as to milk fat and milk solids not fat. The petitioner was summoned to stand trial and after recording pre-charge evidence, charges were framed under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner recorded his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and pleaded his innocence. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, and the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties held that the prosecution had successfully established that the petitioner was guilty of selling milk that did not meet the prescribed standards. The petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced for commission of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 15.12.2001 dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's conviction on the sole and uncorroborated testimony of Dr. Charanjit Garg, is unsustainable. The prosecution has failed to examine Dr. 2 Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002 Vivek Jain, the witness who accompanied Dr. Charanjit Garg. It is submitted that in the absence of any independent corroboration of the drawing of the sample, the Courts below should have rejected the prosecution case. It is also argued that the affidavit filed by Shankar Lal, P.W-3, who forwarded the samples, was defective as it was not properly attested and should therefore, have been ruled out of consideration. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand submits, that the chemical examiner's report clearly establishes that the milk was adulterated. Dr. Charanjit Garg, the complainant took a sample of the milk after following the procedure prescribed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. As the evidence does not disclose any infirmity, the petitioner has been rightly convicted. The affidavit filed by Shankar Lal, PW-3 was defective but a fresh affidavit was filed. As regards the failure of the prosecution to examine Dr. Vivek Jain, it is argued that this fact alone cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution's case as the deposition by the complainant does not suffer from any infirmity. It is further submitted that the defective affidavit filed by Shankar Lal PW-3, was subsequently rectified by filing a correct affidavit Exhibit PG. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments dated 29.07.1999 and 15.12.2001. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for sale of adulterated cow’s milk. The milk does not fulfill the norms prescribed under the Act and no infirmity has been alleged or established in the report submitted by chemical analyst. The argument that the petitioner cannot be convicted on the sole un-corroborated testimony of the complainant cannot be accepted. In the absence of allegation of malafide or any such or similar allegation, the deposition of Dr. Charanjit Singh cannot be discarded, merely because the other doctor 3 Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002 has not been examined. As regards the submission that the affidavit filed by Shankar Lal PW-3, who forwarded the sample, was defective, suffice to say that a fresh affidavit was filed after, rectifying the defects in the earlier affidavit. Adulteration of food and food products are serious offences and must be dealt with strictly. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, there is no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th May, 2009 SKaushik 4