IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 828 of 2000 Date of decision: February 01, 2010 Harish Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Jind, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner Harish Kumar (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), against the judgment dated 23.4.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, convicting him under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In nut shell, the facts are that on 13.5.1989, at about 3.15 p.m. Government Food Inspector Khushi Ram Gambhir (PW1) after associating one independent witness went to the shop of the accused, disclosed his identity and purchased a bottle of Sharbat Sugar (Plain), on payment of Rs.9/- for analyzing. The sharbat so purchased was then divided into three equal parts and poured in three dry clean empty bottles. Twenty drops of 40% formalin were added in each bottle. All the three bottles were duly sealed and labeled as per procedure laid down in the Act. One sealed bottle along with form No.VII was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis through railway parcel. A copy of the form No.VII with the impression of specimen seal was also sent to the laboratory separately. On receipt of the report Ex.PE containing the fact that the total soluble solids were found 60.5% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 65% in the sample a complaint was filed. Criminal Revision No. 828 of 2000 -2- *** After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was served with a notice to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Khushi Ram Gambhir (PW1), Dr. K.C. Jain (PW2) and Ram Babu (PW3). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having heard the rival contentions, no merit could be found in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, an independent witness was joined but was not examined, but mere non examination of the independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. Even in these days, it could well be imagined that the witnesses are least interested in supporting the cause of the State as they do not want to purchase enmity of the private individuals. As regards the argument that the report under Section 13 (2) of the Act was not served upon the petitioner, it may be observed that Ram Babu Clerk (PW3) had appeared and placed on record the postal receipt Ex.PW3/A and forwarding letter Ex.PW3/B of the Local Health Authority, Narwana. Thus, in view of the fact that when a registered letter was issued to the petitioner under postal receipt, then it would be presumed to have been received by him unless otherwise proved on record. Even after the accused was served with the complaint, he did not move an application for re-analyzing the sample. The accused did not even inform the court that he had not received the copy of the Public Analyst's report. The address on the summons tallies with the address in the complaint which was served upon the petitioner, therefore, the accused cannot come to contend that he did not receive the report. It is also well settled by now that the document so dispatched through the postal authorities would be presumed to have reached the destination. However, presumption could be rebutted while examining any such evidence that he had left or changed the address. Criminal Revision No. 828 of 2000 -3- *** There is no denying a fact that “Sharbat Sugar” was recovered from the petitioner and he had exhibited it on his shop, certainly it was meant for sale and was not for his personal consumption. He may be using the same in one manner or the other and earning out of that. Thus, it would be presumed that he had exhibited the “Sharbat Sugar” for sale. Standard of the Sharbat Sugar has been defined in Rule A.07.08.01 of the Act , Appendix 'b' reads as under :- “Synthetic syrup or Sharbat means the syrup obtained by blending syrup made from sugar, dextrose or liquid glucose. It may also contain fruit juice and other ingredients appropriate to the product. It shall be free from burnt or objectionable taints, flavours, artificial sweetening agents, extraneous matter and crystallization. It may contain citric acid, permitted colours, permitted preservatives and permitted flavouring agents. It shall also conform to the following standards namely total soluble solids, not less than 65% by weight.” Now the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.PE) on the record reveals the contents of the sample as under :- “1. Physical appearance :Sharbat sugar in a glass bottle 2. Total Soluble Solids :60.5% 3. Saccharine : Absent 4. Dulcia : Absent 5. Cyclanates : Absent 6. Test for colour : No added coalter dye detected The Public Analyst further opined that the sample gives total Soluble Solids 60.5% against the minimum prescribed standard of 65.0%. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the report and the parameters set out in the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (herein referred as 'the rules'), it would be appropriate to hold that the “Sharbat Sugar” found in possession of the petitioner was not up to the standard, as such, there was clear cut violation of the Rule A.07.08.01. Criminal Revision No. 828 of 2000 -4- *** Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no standard prescribed for the Sharbat, sans any merit as it is only Sharbat, which is blended with sugar, dextrose or liquid glucose, has been recognized as a food article under the Rules, of 1955 for which standard has been prescribed. There is no denying a fact that the present sample was of Sharbat made by blending syrup made from sugar. As such, the contention that the article so recovered from the petitioner had no prescribed standards is without any merit. As regards the next contention that some leniency could be extended as the petitioner has already undergone 13 days of the sentence is of no consequence. The petitioner has been selling the sub-standard article without caring for their health and life of the humans. The accused while using such un-standard food items spoil the life of thousands of people, as such, he does not deserve any leniency. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. The petitioner be taken into custody for serving remaining part of his sentence. February 01, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge