IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 654-SBA of 1998 Date of Decision : January 12, 2010 State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Rajender Prashad .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 5.11.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused was found in possession of 46 quarters of country liquor make Haryana No.1 for public sale. The Government Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, served notice upon the accused and purchased three quarters of country liquor against payment of Rs.24/-. Each of the three quarters Crl. Appeal No. 654-SBA of 1998 -2- contained 180 mls of country liquor. On examination of the sample of country liquor taken from the accused, the Public Analyst opined that the sample gave alcoholic strength 49.80 degree proof against the label description of 550 proof. In view of the said report, the sample was found mis-branded under Section 2(ix)(e)(g) of the Act making the accused liable for the aforementioned offence. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that none of the sample quarters, each containing 180 mls. of alcohol, was opened nor their contents mixed. Therefore, the sample, which was sent to the Public Analyst did not represent the other samples taken from the accused. While coming to the said conclusion, the trial Court relied upon judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Daulat Ram, 1991(2) Simla Law Journal 1140, wherein it was held as under :- “The contention of the learned counsel is not tenable as the sample of carbonated water is to be representative one. In the instant case, the Food Inspector purchased nine bottles by way of sample. These bottles were not opened nor their contents were mixed. The sample was not divided in three separate parts for putting the same in the three separate dry and clean bottles. Crl. Appeal No. 654-SBA of 1998 -3- Three samples of three bottles each were taken and only one sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It was not the case of the complainant that the contents of these bottles were common. The contents of three separate and distinct bottles might have not been uniform. One of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst cannot be said to be representative sample as none out of the nine bottles could be taken as a representative, the prosecution must fail. Anil Kumar v. Food Inspector, Jind, 1982(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 9, is an authority to that effect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the observation made in the above mentioned authority, we find that the respondent was rightly acquitted of the charge and the findings to the effect are affirmed.” The facts of the present case are exactly the same as were in the case of Daulat Ram (supra). In the said case carbonated water was recovered from the accused and the Food Inspector had purchased 9 bottles by way of samples. Those bottles were neither opened nor their contents were mixed. The sample was also not divided into three separate parts for putting the same in three separate dry and clean Crl. Appeal No. 654-SBA of 1998 -4- bottles. Similarly, in the present case, three quarters of country liquor make Haryana No.1 were purchased by the Government Food Inspector from the accused. None of those quarters, each containing 180 mls of country liquor, was opened nor their contents mixed. Therefore, the sample said to have been analysed by the Public Analysis cannot be considered to be a representative sample. In view of the above, the acquittal of the accused- respondent by the trial Court is well merited. No case is made out for interference in the same. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) January 12, 2010 JUDGE satish