Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 Date of Decision 20.12.2010 Om Parkash ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.03.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 04/11.02.2003, passed by the trial Court, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 61(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act'). On 30.11.1997 at about 7:30 a.m., Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector (PW1), accompanied by Dr.P.D.Mehra, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rewari (PW2) intercepted the accused near Housing Board, Dharuhera and found him in possession of 17-18 kilograms of cow's milk, contained in three drums, carried out over the scooter bearing registration No.DEE-3600, for public sale. After serving a requisite notice on Form No.VI, he stirred the milk with plunger and after making it Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 2 uniform, purchased 750 mls of said milk. Thereafter, he divided the purchased milk into three equal parts and poured it in three empty, clean and dry bottles. Necessary quantity of formaline was also added in each bottle as preservative. The said bottles were properly stoppered, sealed, labelled and wrapped as per rules and one sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst who vide his report Ex.PE observed that milk fat as well as milk solids were deficient than the prescribed standard, as such the same was adulterated. Copy of the report of the public Analyst was sent to the accused through Local Health Authority and a complaint was also filed. The accused also availed the right of re-analysis. The Central Food Laboratory, Pune, vide its report Ex.PJ revealed that the contents of the milk solids not fat as well as milk fat were deficient. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and charged. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appeal, preferred by him, also failed. Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has not raised the serious contentions over the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court knowingfully well that re-appreciation of evidence at the revisional stage was not permissible. However, much stressed contention, made by him, is that prosecution has not been launched by a duly authorized person. Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector (PW1), who launched the prosecution, was not competent to do the same. According to him, he was the Government Food Inspector, posted in Civil Hospital, Pataudi, and was given additional charge of Rewari for the purpose of taking sample of the food articles as per letter Ex.PA, issued by the Director, General Health Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 3 Services, Haryana but vide said letter or any other letter, he was not authorized to launch the prosecution. The letter, authorizing him to launch the prosecution was issued by the Director Health Services, Haryana, who could not delegate the powers to launch the prosecution upon the Food Inspector. To the contrary, Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submits that vide letter Ex.PA, Megh Nath (PW1) was not only authorized for taking sample of the food articles in Rewari but also authorized to attend the Court cases. Before discussing the letter Ex.PA, I need to reproduce Section 20(1) of the Act which reads as under:- “Cognizance and trial of offences. (i) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A,] shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government) Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in section 12, if he or it produces in court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint.” Further sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules after consultation with the committee and subject to the condition of previous publication, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act not falling within the purview of Section 23. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Government may make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act in matters not falling within the purview of section 23. Section 24 (2)(e) of Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 4 the Act provides as under:- “24(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may- (e) Provide for the delegation of the powers and functions conferred by this Act on the State Government or the Food (Health) Authority to subordinate authorities or to local authorities.” Vide Government notification No.2274-4HB11-77/17368 dated 09.06.1977, Megh Nath was appointed to launch the prosecution, therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the prosecution to produce the notification before the trial Court has no force. A Gazette notification issued by the State Government is an official document and Court can always take its judicial notice as per the provisions of Evidence Act. Notification bearing No.2274-4HB11-77/17368 dated 09.06.1977 issued by Haryana Government, runs as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954), read with Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and in supersession of Haryana Government notification No.8215-5HB11-74/32953 dated 22nd October, 1974 and all other notifications issued in this behalf, the President of India hereby appoints the persons mentioned below to be Food Inspector for the local areas of their respective jurisdiction except Railway Stations and Railway premises.” On conjoint reading of the two notifications, referred to above, Magh Nath, Government Food Inspector, was authorized to launch the prosecution. If as per Section 20(1), Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector, is competent to launch the prosecution, the next question arises Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004 5 for consideration is that whether Rewari was within the local area of jurisdiction of Megh Nath or not. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is posted at Pataudi. He further states that additional charge of Rewari was also given to him by Director General Health Services, Haryana vide letter Ex.PA. Meaning thereby, he claims to have the authority to launch the prosecution at Rewari by virtue of letter Ex.PA of DGHS, Haryana. As per letter Ex.PA, DGHS, Haryana, has extended the local area of jurisdiction of Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector from Pataudi to Rewari, Bawal and Kosli, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Megh Nath, GFI (PW1) is legally competent to launch the prosecution and file the present complaint at Rewari under Section 20(1) of the Act. Thus, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the Court to quote that the prosecution launched by the complainant Megh Nath was not in any way vitiated. The other argument, raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the marginal deficiency in the case, some lenient view could be taken. In this regard, it is observed that the adulteration has over- shadowed and rather considerably damaged the human frames and if the accused are released while extending concessions to them then that may seriously affect the social fabric, as such, in the given circumstances of the case, no grounds for reduction in the sentence are made out. In the wake of aforesaid discussions, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 20.12.2010 mamta-II