Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1456 OF 2004. DATE OF DECISION : 29-10-2009. Raj Kumar. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2004 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2001 and order of sentence dated 14.02.2001 rendered by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa in criminal Case No.116 of 1994 in a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') whereby the present revision-petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -2- fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 30.04.1994 at 8.00 a.m. Balbir Singh, Government Food Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'GFI') Pehowa alongwith Dr. Rajan Kohli, Medical Officer, CHC, Pehowa intercepted revision-petitioner near Bus Stand of village Gumthala and found him having in his possession 20 litres of cow milk for public sale in a drum. A sample of 750 ML was purchased by the GFI from the accused after giving him notice in writing in form VI prescribed under the rules, on payment of Rs.4.50P. Before taking the sample, whole contents of the milk were properly mixed and made uniform for analysis. Milk purchased was divided into three equal parts, bottled in three dry-cleaned empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin per 25 ML were added as preservative in each bottle and the same were stoppered tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in thick paper. The ends of the paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing code No.KKR-PW-III/FH/304 and signatures of Local Health Authority, Pehowa was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signatures of the revision-petitioner were obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle carry a part of the signature. One sealed bottle alongwith a memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles of sample alongwith two copies of memo in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 30.04.1994 in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum in form VII and a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample and packet were Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -3- sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post vide postal receipt No.345 dated 02.05.1994. 3. As per report Ex.PE of Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, the sample was found adulterated. A copy of the report was served upon the present revision-petitioner and prosecution was launched against him by the GFI on 01.12.1994 under Section 7/16 of the Act. 4. The present revision petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and applied for sending second part of the sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The report Ex.PG of Director, CFL, Pune was received and the same also described that the sample did not conform to the standards of cow's milk as prescribed under the rules because the same contained milk solids not fat less than prescribed limit. 5. Learned trial court treated the case as warrant trial. In pre- charge evidence, Balbir Singh, GFI and Om Parkash Kalra, GFI were examined as PW1 and PW2, respectively. The accused was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. After framing of charge, Balbir Singh, GFI and Om Parkash, GFI were cross-examined by the accused. Prosecution also examined Dr. V.K.Dogra, PW3 and Dr. Rajan Kohli, PW4. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed. 7. Statement of revision-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the version of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the revision-petitioner as aforementioned. The present revision-petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the court of Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -4- Sessions, which was also dismissed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide, impugned judgment. 8. I have heard Mr. Varun Gupta, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner and Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record carefully. 9. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of PW1 Balbir Singh, GFI, PW2 Om Parkash Kalra, GFI, PW3 Dr.V.K.Dogra and PW4 Dr. Rajan Kohli and also report (Ex.PG) of Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that no independent witness was associated by the GFI at the time of taking sample of milk from the accused and hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of official witnesses alone. 11. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana that there is no rule of law that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of the official witnesses. 12. In the present case, categorical stand has been taken by the complainant that he tried to join independent witness and that however, none came forward. This fact has also been endorsed in memo Ex.PC by the GFI and this document was prepared on the spot itself and the said document was duly signed by Dr.Rajan Kohli and by the accused. The GFI while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated that some persons gathered on the spot at the Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -5- time of taking sample, however, nobody was ready to become a witness. Dr.Rajan Kohli, PW4 has also supported the statement of PW1 on this point. This plea of the accused has been duly considered by the learned Appellate Court and it was rightly held that no benefit can be given to the revision- petitioner. 13. In Appa Bai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, it was observed that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground that an independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution as the civil people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence and they keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. In the present case, the deposition of both the witnesses is consistent on all the material points. They were acting in the discharge of their official duties. They were having no enmity against the accused. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reliance can be placed on the version of official witnesses in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. 14. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that total of milk fat and milk solids not fat comes to 13.3 which is more than the standard prescribed for cow's milk and hence, the revision- petitioner is liable to be acquitted. On this point he also placed reliance upon Om Parkash v. State of Haryana 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 127 and Chhaju Ram v. State of Haryana 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 847. This plea has also been duly considered by both the courts below and did not find any force in the submission. The legal principle has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in 1976(2) FAC 44 State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, wherein it was held that it is not open to the courts to ignore even marginal deficiency of the necessary ingredients of the food stuffs. It was also held in 1982(1) FAC 318 Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -6- State of U.P. v. Sham Manohar that any deficiency either in fatty solids or non-fatty solids would amount to adulteration within the meaning of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, 1948-1997 FAC 131 (SC) has also held that a negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standards laid down in the Act can not be ignored. Similar view was taken in Jagdish Parshad @Jagdish Parsad Gupta v. State of West Bengal, 1951-1985 FAC (SC) 40. 15. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the petitioner is facing trial since the year 1994 and that he has already undergone the agony of trial for the last about 15 years. Hence, he has argued that a lenient view in the matter of sentence be taken. 16. I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision- petitioner. In this case milk fat was found more than the prescribed standard. Only marginal deficiency was found in the milk solids not fat. Petitioner- accused has been facing trial for the last about 15 years. In my view, ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months. Hence, the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the present revision-petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 17. The present revision petition is dismissed so far as the appeal against judgment of conviction passed by the courts below is concerned. However, the same is partly accepted so far as order of sentence is concerned and it is modified to the extent indicated above. 18. The imprisonment already undergone by the revision-petitioner during investigation, enquiry or trial of the case, shall be set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Crl. Revision No.1456 of 2004 -7- 19. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 20. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 29, 2009. JUDGE 'om'