Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 Baldev Dass son of Shri Gobind Ram, resident of Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Government Food Inspector, Bhiwani. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.10.08, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide which, it convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and, sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 06 months, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment, Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 2 for a period of 07 days, but, acquitted Lalit Kumar, and, the judgement dated 06.01.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- III, Bhiwani, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 28.02.04, the Government Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Lalit Kumar, and, found him in possession of 12 poly pouches of 250 gms each of Damru Tea. The Government Food Inspector, purchased three poly pouches of Damru Tea, against the payment of Rs. 75/-, for the purpose of analysis, by giving notice, to Lalit Kumar, in writing, on form VI, which was separated into three equal parts, and put in three clean and dry bottles duly labelled and sealed. Thereafter, a sample parcel alongwith a memorandum in form VII, was sent, to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis. The other two sample parcels alongwith two copies of memo in form VII, were deposited with the local health authority, on 01.08.04. After the receipt of report, from the Public Analyst, a complaint, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, was filed, against Lalit Kumar and Baldev Dass, the proprietor of M/s Govind Ram Baldev Dass, indulging in the business of manufacturing Damru Tea. 3. The trial Court, after finding a prima-facie case, against Lalit Kumar and Baldev Dass, accused, summoned them, to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Thereafter, the complainant led pre-charge evidence, by examining Dr. K.K. Basotia (PW2), Joginder, Clerk (PW2), and, himself appeared as (PW3). Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 3 5. Charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 6. In after charge evidence, the witnesses were further cross- examined. Thereafter, the complainant, closed his evidence. 7. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, did not lead any evidence, in defence, and closed the same. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Baldev Dass, accused, and acquitted Lalit Kumar, accused, as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by Baldev Dass, appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani, vide judgement dated 06.01.2010. 10. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, in fact, there was no violation of the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Rules' only), as the Pin-Code number, had been mentioned, by Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 4 the revision-petitioner, on the wrapper of the food article. He further submitted that Bhiwani, could not be said to be such a big town, where, the address of the Company, which manufactured the material with a Pin-Code, having been given, could not be located. He further submitted that, even the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules, 1977, gave an option, to the manufacturer, to either mention the name of the State or the Pin-Code. He further submitted that the Courts below, were, thus, wrong in coming, to the conclusion, that the revision-petitioner, violated the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, and, as such, committed the offence, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being illegal and perverse, are liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, on the poly pouches of Damru Tea, incomplete address, had been written, as 'Gobind Ram Baldevdas, Bhiwani (127021)'. He further submitted that mere mention of Pin-Code, could not be said to be sufficient, to comply with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules. He further submitted that, the Courts below, thus, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that since complete address, was not written, the sample, was mis-branded. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 14. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons, Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 5 to be recorded, hereinafter. It is, no doubt, true that, in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court, cannot interfere with the judgements of the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, are perverse or illegal, on account of misreading or misappreciation of evidence and non-consideration of material pieces of evidence. In this case, the food article, of which, the sample, was taken, from the premises of the petitioner, was not found, to be adulterated. It was, according to the prosecution, found to be mis- branded, on account of the reason, that incomplete address of the manufacturer, was given, on the poly pouches of Damru Tea. As stated above, on the poly pouches of Damru Tea, it was, in clear-cut terms, written that, packed by 'Gobind Ram Baldevdas, Bhiwani (127021)'. Since Pin-Code, was mentioned, it was not at all impossible, for the Inspector, or the authorities, to locate the premises of M/s Gobind Ram Baldev Dass, Bhiwani. Even otherwise, Bhiwani, could not be said to be such a metropolitan town, where, the address of M/s Gobind Ram Baldev Dass, could not be located. In Mr. Hasmukh Mewada Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(3), Law Herald (P&H), 2491, a similar question arose for consideration. In that case, violation of Rule 32, on account of writing of incomplete address, was alleged, by the prosecution. The Court, held that, once the Pin-Code, was written, on the package, the requirement of the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules, 1977, stood satisfied, and, as such, no offence, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, was committed. The principle of law, laid down, in Mr. Hasmukh Mewada's case (supra), Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2010 6 is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. The Courts below, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in holding, that complete address of 'Gobind Ram Baldevdas, Bhiwani (127021)', was not written. The judgements of the Courts below, thus, being perverse and illegal, are liable to be set aside. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The judgements of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, are set aside. The revision-petitioner, stands acquitted of the charge, framed against him. If, he is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If, he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. 16. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of law, and send the compliance report, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. 06.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE