The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the rule favoring the accused when two views are possible and the presence of glaring discrepancies in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2005 wherein the trial Court had acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PFA’).

2. The case of the complainant is that on 14.07.1995 at about 12:30 pm, the Food Inspector Bal Mukund (PW-1) had taken sample of “sodium benzoate” (a food article) from Surrender Kumar Jain from his shop i.e. M/s Puran Chand & Sons at 3540, Qutab Road, Delhi. The said article was being stored for sale. The respondent was conducting business at the time when this food sample was purchased; the sample consisted of thirty originally sealed packets containing 20 gms “sodium benzoate” each; the sample was divided in three equal parts and each sample was correctly sealed, packet and fastened. The panchnama (Ex.PW-1/C) was prepared at the spot. The other documents including vendor’s receipt (Ex.PW-1/A), cash memo (Ex.PW-1/D) were prepared at the spot. Efforts were made to join public witness but no public witness had joined. One counterpart has been sent to the public analyst. The public analyst vide its report dated 24.08.1995 had reported that the sample is mis-branded because there is a violation of Rule 48-C. Accordingly, the challan was filed.

3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Food Inspector (PW-1) and Gopal Singh (LHA) (PW-2).

4. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. The first and third questions and the answers thereto read herein as under:-

“Q. It is in evidence against you that on 14.07.1995 FI Saniv Gupta and other staff of PFA under supervision of LHA Gopal Singh visited M/s Puran Chand & Sons 3540, Qutab Road, Delhi where you were found present and conducting business of said firm and had stored sodium benzoate a food article for sale for human consumption. What do you have to say:

Ans. It was not meant for human consumption as food article.

Q. Further that sodium benzoate was in sealed pack containing 20 gms in each packet and at 12:30 PM FI Bal Mukund purchased 30 such originally sealed packet from you for Rs.128.40 vide vendor’s receipt Ex.PW-1/A which you also signed. What do you have to say? Ans. It was a mixture of sodium benzoate and salt names as sodium bejote.”

5. No evidence was led in defence.

6. As noted supra, the appellant was acquitted as the Court had noted that the documents which had been prepared at the spot i.e. panchnama, vendor’s receipt all contained reference of terms “sodium bejoate” and what was analyzed by the CFSL was also “sodium bejoate” but the consent for prosecution (Ex.PW-2/A) had been obtained for “sodium benzoate”. This was held to be a glaring discrepancy in the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution which remained unexplained; the benefit of this has been given to the respondent and the respondent stood acquitted.

7. On behalf of the appellant, arguments had been addressed in length. It is pointed out that the judgment of the trial Court is an illegality; it is liable to be set aside; it is pointed out that there was a clear misbranding as there is no food article by the term of “sodium bejoate”; it was only a typing error which had occurred in the documents and even otherwise irregularities or lapse in investigation must not accrue in favour of the accused. It is submitted that what has been analyzed by the CFSL is in fact “sodium benzoate” and this is clear from the conclusion of the analyst in his report wherein he has clearly noted that there has been a misbranding because of violation of Rule 48-C; misbranding being that ISI certificate was not obtained on the aforenoted food article.

8. These submissions have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is pointed out that what was sealed and was purchased by the Food Inspector was “sodium bejoate” as is clear from the vendor’s receipt, panchnama as also the report of the analyst. Sample sent