State of Punjab vs Des Raj

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is an appeal filed by the State of Punjab directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated 18.2.1993. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order of sentence, the learned trial Court held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but released the respondent on probation of good conduct. Respondent was directed to furnish personal bond to a sum of Rs. 300/ with a surety of like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He was burdened with Rs. 1000/ as costs of litigation.

The relevant facts are that on 2.6.1986, Dr. Vijay Kumar alongwith Dr. Balbir Chand inspected the premises of the respondent. He was found having in his possession 144 bottles of sweetened carbonated water for human consumption. Dr. Vijay Kumar disclosed his identity as Food Inspector. A demand was made for taking a sample of sweetened carbonated water by serving a notice in writing on the respondent. The notice was attested by the respondent and the witnesses. 6 bottles of 300 mls. each of sweetened carbonated water were taken against the receipt which was attested by the respondent. The six bottles were divided into three packets. Each packet was labelled and wrapped in a strong thick khaki paper. A paper slip having code and serial number duly signed was pasted with gum on each packet. Each packet was sealed with six distinct seals with a seal under impression of "V.K." Each packet was signed by the Food Inspector as well as by the respondent, in such a manner that the signatures covered the slip as well as the paper. One sealed packet of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab through Jeet Ram. A copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal was also sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab through the same messenger. The counter part of two packets were deposited on the same day. Ram Lal had also joined as an independent witness in all these proceedings.

The Public Analyst, Punjab vide his report declared that contents of the sample contained 2.36% of total sugar expressed as sucrose against the minimum prescribed standard of 5.0% saccharine and artificial sweetener. The contents were found to be contaminated with coliborn bacteria and suspended matter was also present in the sample.

After appraisal of the evidence on the record, learned trial Court held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereupon passed the impugned order releasing the respondent on probation of good conduct mentioned above.

Aggrieved against the said order of sentence, present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the respondent took up a preliminary objection that appeal would be maintainable with the Court of Sessions and not in this Court. The answer is provided by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State (Union Territory), Chandigarh v. Manjit Singh and others, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 185 . It was held that appeal against the order releasing the respondent under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would be maintainable only in the High Court. Keeping in view the said judicial pronouncement, no further discussion is required and the argument taken up by the learned counsel for the respondent must fail.

Section 20AA was added in the provisions of Food Adulteration Act by Act 34 of 1976. It is specifically provided that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, unless that person is under 18 years of age.

Indeed when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular way, it should be done in the same manner. Section 20AA of the Act has been enacted with an object to carry into effect the strict provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which even provides for minimum punishment for violation of its provisions. Adulteration by itself is a menace to public health. It is with this object and to avoid menace that minimum punishment was prescribed, which was followed by Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the learned trial Court inadvertently fell into an error.

For these reasons, I accept this appeal and set aside the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Instead the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one more month.