Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1714
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
L.N.Mittal, J.
Sucha Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 311 of 1996,
Decided On : OCTOBER 5, 2009
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the credibility of witness testimonies in proving guilt.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Conviction under Section 16(l)(a)(i) - [Adulterated Milk, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act] - [Section 7, Section 16(l)(a)(i)] - The court discussed the requirement of stirring the milk to make it homogeneous before purchasing the sample, the purpose of the milk, compliance with Section 10(7) of the Act, and the quantum of sentence. The court relied on various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed standards and the seriousness of food adulteration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for carrying adulterated cow milk for sale. The prosecution's evidence included the purchase of a milk sample by the Food Inspector, which was found to be deficient in milk solids not fat. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that the milk was meant for a relative's daughter's marriage, not for sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and contemporaneous documents. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding the homogeneity of the milk sample and the purpose of carrying the milk, emphasizing the lack of evidence and non-examination of a relevant witness.
Issues: The issues included the homogeneity of the milk sample, the purpose of carrying the milk, compliance with Section 10(7) of the Act, and the quantum of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims, the importance of adhering to prescribed standards, and the seriousness of food adulteration. The court also emphasized the credibility of witness testimonies and the concurrent finding of guilt by the lower courts.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender to his bail bonds or face arrest to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
L.N.Mittal, J.
1. Sucha Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence by both the courts below.
2. According to the prosecution version, Government Food Inspector Teja Singh, accompanied by Dr. T.C. Wadhwa, intercepted the petitioner on 29.08.1987, while the petitioner was carrying a drum containing cow milk, on cycle, for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls milk from the petitioner as sample for analysis.- One part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Karnal, who after analysis gave report that the milk was adulterated as milk solids not fat were deficient by 20% than the minimum prescribed standard. Accordingly, Food Inspector instituted criminal complaint for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short - the Act).
3. Charge under Section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act was framed against the petitioner after recording of pre-charge evidence.
4. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide judgment and order dated 12.01.1995, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
5. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 16.04.1996. Feeling still aggrieved, the convict has preferred the instant revision petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel forthe parties and perused the case file.
7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Teja Singh - Government Food Inspector as PW-1 and Dr. T.C. Wadhwa asPW-3. Both of them broadly stated according to prosecution version. Jagdish - Clerk from the office of Local Health Authority appeared as PW-2 and stated from record that copy of report of Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner, along with forwarding memo, by registered post.
8. The petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that he was carrying the milk for marriage of Karamvir Kaur daughter of his relative Manjit Singh and not for sale. In defence, the petitioner examined Jinda (DW-1) and Gurdial (DW-2). Both of them stated that the petitioner was not carrying on occupation of sale of milk. Jindaalso stated that the petitioner was carrying milk for marriage of daughter of Manjit Singh.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before taking sarnple, the milk was not stirred to make it homogeneous and therefore, the petitioner deserves acquittal. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this Court i.e. in the case of State of Haryana v. Prabhu Dayal, reported as 1992(3) RCR(Criminal) 642 : 1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 212 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Sura) Mai, reported as 1992(3) RCR(Criminal) 575:1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 217. However, in both those cases, the factum of stirring the milk to make it homogeneous before purchasing the sample was not mentioned in the complaint and accompanying documents. In the instant case, however, it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint as well as accompanying contemporaneous documents that the milk was made homogeneous before purchasing the sample. Consequently, both the judgments are distinguishable on facts. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Singh v. State of Haryana, reported as 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 684:2003(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 182. In that case, on the basis of evidence, it was concluded that it was not proved that the milk was properly stirred and made homogeneous. In the instant case, however, there
