Criminal Revision No.2053 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2053 of 2003 Date of Decision 27.09.2010 Vicky son of S.Sardool Singh ...... Petitioner VERS`US State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Anubhuti Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicted the appellant- accused (herein referred as 'the accused') under Section 16 (i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for brevity 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. However, in appeal, the sentence was reduced to six months. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 15.12.1994 at about 12:30 p.m., Dr.Sita Ram, District Health Authority, Patiala (herein referred as 'the Food Inspector') alongwith Dr.Amritpal Singh raided the premises of the company run in the name and style of 'Bawa Milk Dairy', Sanauri Gate, Patiala, where the accused was found present. Dr.Sita Ram took the sample of buffalo milk from the iron drum after making it homogenous by stirring the same. Thereafter he divided it into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. In each bottle the requisite number of formaline drops were added and the bottles were tightly labelled and wrapped in thick dry Criminal Revision No.2053 of 2003 2 paper on which the slip of Local Health Authority was pasted. The same was secured with a strong twine. Signatures of the vendor were also obtained and spot memo was prepared. One bottle was sent to the public analyst through Roop Singh, peon alongwith copy of the Form No.VII with the sample seal impression separately. The Public Analyst, vide his report conveyed that the sample was found deficient in milk fat as well as solids not fat, therefore, the complaint was filed. Notice of accusation was issued against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Roop Singh (PW1), Dr.Sita Ram (PW2), Gurdev Kaur (PW3) and Dr.Amritpal Singh (PW4). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed with the modification in the sentence. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought re-appreciation of the evidence for reversal of the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below, which certainly is not permissible at the revisional stage. While developing her argument further, she has urged that since the milk was not made homogenous before taking the sample, therefore, lacuna would result into serious prejudice to the accused and failure of justice, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Be that it may, Rule 14 requires the Food Inspector to make the milk homogenous before taking the sample but both the witnesses have Criminal Revision No.2053 of 2003 3 categorically testified that milk was stirred before drawing the sample. The complaint as well as statements contain the factum with regard to making the milk homogenous. No such question was asked regarding the method of making the milk homogenous, therefore, the witnesses themselves were not required to elaborate the method. As regards the contention with regard to non-joining of independent witnesses, it transpires that the prudence requires the joining of the independent witness. On examination of the testimonies of the official witnesses, it transpires that Food Inspector had made efforts to join the independent witnesses but none was ready to join, as such, the requirement to join independent witness becomes insignificant and non-compliance of Rule 10(7) of the Act, is not mandatory. It has been held in Full Bench Judgment, delivered in case State of Punjab versus Raman Kumar 1997 (4) Recent Criminal Reports 772 that the Food Inspector had made efforts to secure the presence of independent witness but it was not possible to secure the same then it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Rule 10(7) of the Act. The other argument of the learned counsel that there was a negligible deficiency in the contents of the milk, therefore, such harsh sentence should have been passed against the accused. In this regard, it is observed that cow's milk so sold by the accused to which Chemical Analyst, on analysis, vide his report Ex.PW2/F found to contain milk fat 3.6% and milk solids not fat 7.6%. Thus, the contents of the sample were deficient both in milk fat as well as milk solids not fat than the minimum prescribed standards. Had there been any increase in either of the contents above the prescribed Criminal Revision No.2053 of 2003 4 standards then some speculation could be made regarding proper feeding of the cow. But in this case, the accused appear to have adulterated the milk by adding some substan ce or extracted the contents thereby both the milk solids and fat came down. As regards the quantum of sentence, the accused was earlier awarded the sentence to the extent of one year. However, keeping in view the time consumed in the trial, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence to six months but still dissatisfied he has again come up in revision and has prayed for reduction of the same. The people in this part of the country by selling the adulterated articles try to become rich overnight and claim mercies of the Courts on the plea of delay in disposal of the proceedings. The menace of adulteration is not likely to decrease unless stringent steps are taken and stricter sentence is not provided. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 27.09.2010 mamta-II