State vs Joginder Lal and Others

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta

The present petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th March, 2010 dismissing the

revision petition and the judgment dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in PFA Case No. 166/99 discharging the

Respondent.

Learned APP for the State contends that the learned Judges without appreciating the evidence passed the impugned judgments on the basis of

surmises and conjectures. It is contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after issuing the notice to the Respondent discharged them

summarily without asking the Petitioner to lead any evidence. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the conclusion reached by the

learned Judge is based upon the report of the Director, CFL which supersedes the report of the public analyst. The judgment is well-reasoned and

calls for no interference by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 22nd July, 1999 at about 1:45 p.m.

Food Inspector A.K. Singh purchased a sample of dhania powder for analysis from Sh. Joginder Lal at M/s Satish Provisional Store, Shop No.

25, Netaji Nagar Market, New Delhi who was carrying the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The sample consisted of 325

grms of the food article. The sample was taken from a sealed polybag bearing identical label declaration. The sample was divided into three equal

parts and each part was put in a separate clean and dry bottle and each of it was packed separately, fastened and sealed as per the provisions of

PFA Act and Rules. Vendor''s signatures were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. It is stated that before starting the

proceedings, efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none came forward. All the documents were got signed from the Respondent and

other witnesses. The sample was taken under the supervision of local health authorities. One of the three samples was got deposited with the public

analyst with seals intact. The other two counter-parts of the sample were deposited with the local health authority. On analysis of the sample, the

Public Analyst found that the sample does not conform to the standards. The Respondent exercised his right u/s 13(2) of the PFA Act and

requested to get the second counterpart sample to be analysed from the Director CFL. The report submitted by the Director CFL observed that

the dhania powder is adulterated due to presence of turmeric starch. Thereafter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the parties

discharged the Respondent. This order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged which revision petition was dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge. The same is impugned in the present petition.

On a perusal of the report of the Director, CFL dated 4th January, 2000 it is apparent that the only test conducted was a microscopical

examination which opined that the food article was adulterated with few turmeric starches, no other chemical test of the said food article was

conducted. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander vs. State of U.P. 1981 1 PFA Case 33 held that where the sample of dalchini had

not undergone the chemical, test but it was only examined under a microscope, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. It was further

held that mere ocular examination cannot ascertain with any degree of accuracy, the ingredients such as ash insoluble in HCL or volatile oil or

moisture. Also this Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Janta Sudh Masala Stores & Ors., 2008 (1) JCC 586 held that a physical examination

without chemical test having been conducted and the precise nature of organic matter also having not been specified is insufficient to prove the

prosecution case which must fail. Similarly, in the case at hand the only test conducted was a microscopic examination of the food article and not a

chemical test. The precise nature or content of the same has also not been specified. Thus, the benefit-of doubt has been rightly granted to the

Respondent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back.