Criminal Revision No.1196 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2004 Date of Decision: April 28, 2009 Vinod Kumar and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act') vide judgment dated 15.10.1999 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 18.5.2004. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “ Let us first have a look on the allegations contained in the complaint Ex.PE lodged by the Govenment Food Inspector (GFI for short) Ram Singh (PW1). On 16.7.92 at around 6.00 p.m. at Naraingarh Criminal Revision No.1196 of 2004 2 Octroi Post No.5, GFI Ram Singh accompanied by Dr.Gyanendra Sharma (PW2) inspected the premises of the appellants Vinod Kumar and Raj Kumar and found them having in their possession 20 litres of Mustard (Sarson) and Sunflower (surajmukhi) oil contained in a drum for public sale. After giving prescribed notice Ex.PA, GFI Ram Singh purchased 375 ml. litres of Mustard and Sunflower Oil for Rs.10.50 paise for analysis from the appellant Vinod Kumar against receipt Ex.PB. The Oil purchased by GFI Ram Singh was divided into three equal parts and was bottled in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The bottles were stoppered and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. Bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper, ends of which were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing code and signatures of Local Health Authority (LHA), Ambala was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom and after securing by means of strong twine, each bottle was sealed with seals of Medical Officer and GFI at the spot. Signatures of the appellant Raj Kumar were obtained on each bottle in such a manner that both the paper slips and their wrapper on each sealed bottle carried parts of his signatures. One sealed bottle along with memorandum in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in sealed packet through messenger. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memorandum in Form VII were deposited with the LHA Ambala in a sealed packet. A copy of memorandum in Form VII and a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample were sent to Public Criminal Revision No.1196 of 2004 3 Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh through messenger. The certificate of Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh Ex.PD showed that the sale of mixture of edible oils as an edible oil was prohibited under Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). On receipt of this report of Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, GFI Ram Singh filed the complaint Ex.PE in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amabala." Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for having in their possession Mustard oil and Sunflower oil. As per the report of the Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the recovery effected was of mustard oil and sunflower oil. Rather from the report of the Public Analyst, it is revealed that only mustard oil had been recovered. As per Clause A 17.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') ,the sample recovered from the petitioners was within the standard fixed for mustard oil. Public Analyst has simply given its opinion that the sale of mixture of edible oils as an edible oil is prohibited under rule 44(e) of the Rules. In the present case, the sample was drawn on 16.7.1992 at about 6.00 P.M., after the premises of the petitioners were inspected. However, the opinion given by the Public Analyst in the report Exhibit PD is only to the effect that the sale of mixture of edible oils as an edible oil is prohibited under rule 44(e) of the Rules. However, there is no specific opinion of the Public Analyst to the effect that the sample drawn from the premises of the petitioner was, in fact, a mixture of mustard oil and sunflower oil as alleged by the prosecution. As per the clause A 17.06 of Criminal Revision No.1196 of 2004 4 the rules, the result of analysis conducted by the Public Analyst reveals that the sample confirmed to the standard of mustard oil. In these circumstances, the Courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charge framed against them.. (Sabina) Judge April 28, 2009 arya