SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(P&H) 280

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Kumar, J.
State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Chand and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 47-DBA of 1993.
Decided On : 10 March, 2004

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri D.S. Bishnoi, Addl. AG Punjab.
For the Respondent No. 1:Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Shri D.S. Brar, Advocate.

The principle of not interfering with the trial court's decision unless compelling reasons exist.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act - 1955, Section 7 - Punjab Regulation of Compounded Cattle, Food, Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures Order, 1988 - [Section 378(3) of CrPC] - [Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955] - [Clause 3 of Punjab Regulation of Compounded Cattle, Food, Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures Order, 1988] - The judgment discusses the violation of Clause 3 of the Order under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court analyzed the procedure for taking samples, the authority to take samples, and the standard requirements for cattle feed. The court upheld the acquittal of the accused based on the lack of authorization for sample collection and the omission of Form I, which affected the reliance on BIS specifications. The court also found that the accused were not connected with the sample, and emphasized the principle of not interfering with the trial court's decision unless compelling reasons exist.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating Clause 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Compounded Cattle, Food, Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures Order, 1988. The prosecution alleged sub-standard cattle feed and improper sample collection.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the acquittal, citing lack of authorization for sample collection, omission of Form I affecting reliance on BIS specifications, and failure to connect the accused with the sample. The court emphasized the principle of not interfering with the trial court's decision unless compelling reasons exist.

Issues: Violation of Clause 3 of the Order, authorization for sample collection, reliance on BIS specifications, and connection of accused with the sample.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of not interfering with the trial court's decision unless compelling reasons exist. It also highlighted the lack of authorization for sample collection and the omission of Form I affecting reliance on BIS specifications.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was maintained. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties, if any, were discharged.

JUDGMENT

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is State appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the acquittal of respondents in case FIR No. 5 dated 10.1.1990 P.S. Civil Lines, Patiala registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity the Act) for violation of Clause 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Compounded Cattle, Food, Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures Order, 1988 (for brevity the Order).

2. The prosecution version as disclosed in the FIR is that on 14.9.1989 Atma Singh, Deputy Director, Dairy Development Patiala accompanied by Parshotam Dass and Darshan Singh, Poultry Extension Officer, Ludhiana and Assistant Dairy Extension Officer, Hoshiarpur respectively visited the premises of the accused respondent Jagdish Chand son of Brij Lal. The cattle feed was available in the shop for sale and Jagdish Chand was present. Out of 5 bags one cattle feed bag was taken at random and sample was drawn. Three samples were taken out of the said bag. It is stated that they were spread on a newspaper which was dried and cleaned. Thereafter the sample was made homogeneous. Three samples of cattle freed weighing about 400 gms. each were taken. The cattled feed was put in dry and clean plastic bags and then air was relieved from those bags. The sealed bags were put in three cotton bags. Sample proformas were inserted in each of the bags and thereafter the cotton bags were tied with string and sealed with the seal of Dairy Extension Officer, Ludhiana Parshotam Dass at four different places. One part of the sample was handed over to the accused and the remaining two were retained by Parshotam Dass. Seizure memo was prepared and signed by Parshotam Dass and Darshan Singh. It was also signed by accused Jagdish Chand. On the basis of the complaint submitted by Atma Singh, FIR was recorded being FIR No. 5 of 10.1.1990, both the accused were charged under Section 7 of the Act for having violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order. They claimed trial. The special Judge, Patiala on the basis of the evidence led has found them not guilty of the charged offences. The brief resume of the reasons given by the Special Judge is as under :

a) Atma Singh, Deputy Director was not authorised to take the sample;

b) the procedure adopted for taking sample is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 374 (P&H);

c) no proper investigation has been carried out and it is has not been pointed out whether Jagdish Chand was the sole proprietor or partner of the firm; and

d) it is not clear as to whether accused No. 1 Jagdish Chand was the manufacturer.

3. On the basis of the afore-mentioned reasons, the Special Judge recorded a finding that it cannot be said that charge has been proved and there is violation of Clause 3 of the Order which in turn is punishable under Section 7 of the Act.

4. Shri D.S. Bishnoi, learned State counsel has argued that all the witnesses namely PW.1 to PW.4 have supported the version disclosed in the FIR that the sample was not in accordance with the required standard as laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards (for brevity BIS). The sample was found to the sub-standard and below BIS specifications. According to the ld. State Counsel, the discrepancy pointed out with regard to the procedure of sample cannot be considered fatal to the success of the prosecution. He has further submitted that in the cross-examination nothing worthwhile could be extracted from the afore-mentioned four witnesses. The learned counsel has maintained that no prejudice has been suffered by the accused respondent on account of the procedure followed for taking sample. He has also placed reliance on the report of the Analyst Ex.PW3/A and argued that it clearly showed that the sample was found to be sub-standard. He has placed reliance on the opinion expressed by the Analyst in the afore-mentioned document which reads as under



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top