IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 Date of Decision: 28.7.2009 Umed Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri S.S.Narula,Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Shri Ajay Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 10.7.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the petitioner preferred against judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 5.2.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court'), was dismissed. On 28.10.1985, the petitioner was intercepted by the Food Inspector and other officials, while he was carrying 18 Kgs. of cow-milk for sale in a drum. A sample of 660 Mls. was taken from him by the Food Inspector against payment and on examination, the same was found Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 -2- .... deficient in milk solids not fat by the Public Analyst to the extent of 8% than the prescribed standard. Accordingly, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector for prosecution of the petitioner and ultimately he was convicted by the trial Court for having contravened the provisions of Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner,while assailing the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner, primarily contended that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst were not put to him in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and this has resulted in serious prejudice to his case and, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Amar Nath Versus The State of Haryana, 1987(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 150 (P&H); Surjit Singh Versus The State of Punjab, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 396 (P&H); Sangat Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 56 (P&H) and Kuldip Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 47 (P&H). Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 -3- .... On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that a question to the effect that report Exhibit-PD of the Public Analyst was mentioned to have been received by the Food Inspector and on the basis of which, the complaint was filed against him, was put to the petitioner and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to him on this count. He supported the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner on the basis of the evidence available on record. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the whole record. A perusal of the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that a question with regard to the report of the Public Analyst was put to him. When translated in English, it reads as under:- “That it has come in evidence against you that Food Inspector had received the report of the Public Analyst which is Ex.PD through L.A.H. and that according to which, the sample was found adulterated. Further that on the basis of this, Food Inspector filed complaint Ex.PE against you in the Courts at Sonepat and that Food Inspector handed over the complaint after its filing to LAH. That LAH sent the same with his forwarding letter which is Ex. PE. That report of the Public Analyst was sent to you through regd. post, the receipt for which is Ex.PH so that you could get tested the second part of the sample. That LAH gave intimation regarding this to the Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 -4- .... Food Inspector. What do you want to say about this?” The petitioner had given reply to the aforementioned question to the effect that he does not know. Thus, it is clear that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst and the deficiency which was found in the sample, were not clearly put to the petitioner so as to enable him to state his defence. In Mangal Dass Versus The State of Haryana, 1986(2) C.L.R. 5 = 1986(2) F.A.C. 6, this Court held as under:- “A plain reading of the relevant question put to the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, disclose that there was no such compliance. In one long winding question, the factum of the report of the Public Analyst disclosing that there was adulteration, the complaint having been lodged by the Food Inspector and a copy of the report having been sent to him within statutory time, was put to him, which he denied. The extent of adulteration was not put to him to explain. Thus, on the strength of Ram Chander's case (supra), the conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable.” In Amar Nath's case (supra), the petitioner therein was acquitted of the charge while finding his case to be covered by the decision in Mangal Dass's case (supra). In Surjit Singh's case (supra), this Court observed as under:- “In the instant case a perusal of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that the question put to him Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 -5- .... was:- “On receipt of the result Ex.PD received from the public Analyst it was found that your sample of cow's milk had failed. What have you to say? The petitioner was neither told that as per report of the Public Analyst milk solids not fat contents in the sample were found 7% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 9% and that as per report of the Central Food Laboratory the contents of milk solids not fat were found to be 8.1% against the minimum prescribed standard of 9%. In such circumstances the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not bring out actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the petitioner and his conviction was liable to be set aside on this solitary ground.” In Sangat Singh's case (supra), in the similar circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner therein were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge. In Kuldip Kumar's case (supra), the following observations were made:- “....... A plain reading of the relevant question put to the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed that there was no such compliance. In fact, nothing was asked to the petitioner about the extent of alleged adulteration. Therefore, the conviction of Crl.Revision No.531 of 1996 -6- .... the petitioner cannot be sustained on this ground as well.” Having regard to the fact that the contents of the deficiency were not put to the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned decisions, the instant revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments are set aside and the conviction & sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge against him. July 28,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge