DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. NARAYAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC filed by the State against the judgment dated 29.4.2011 of learned Special Judge. NDPS, New Delhi passed in case CA No. 113/2010 under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the 'Act'), whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of acquittal of respondent dated 28.5.2010 by the learned ACMM.

(2.) The case, in brief against the respondent was that on 28.10.2002 at about 6.30 p.m., a sample of 'ladoo', a food article was taken for analysis by the Food Inspector from the respondent's shop where the said food article was stored for sale for human consumption. The sample consisted of 1.5 kg. of ladoo taken from an open tray bearing no label declaration. The sample was stated to be cut into smallest possible pieces and mixed properly. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts by putting them in three separate dry bottles and each bottle containing the sample was separately parceled and sealed. Rest of the formalities were completed. One part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst (P.A.), which came to be analyzed vide his report dated 15.11.2002. The Public Analyst reported the food to be adulterated on account of it containing total dye content of the synthetic colour used exceeding the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm. The respondent after being summoned exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and second counter part of sample was sent to CFL, who also confirmed the sample to be adulterated in contravention of Rule 30 of the PFA Rules. 1955. After the trial, learned ACMM recorded the acquittal of the respondent vide order dated 28.5.2010. The petitioner/State took the matter in appeal before the Special Judge, who also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.4.2011. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge.

(3.) The main ground for acquittal that was recorded by the Trial Court was the variations in the two reports of analysis done by P.A. and the Director, CFL. The variations was to the extent of 65.63 ppm in colour concentration between the two counter parts. The Trial Court relied upon the case of Kanshi Nath Vs. State,2005 3 JCC(Del) 1637 of this court. Before the appellate court of Special Judge, contention raised by the petitioner/State was that the report of P.A. cannot be compared with the CFL certificate. Even before this court, the impugned judgment has been assailed by the State on the ground that with the certificate of Director. CFL being there, the report of the Public Analyst was superseded and that it was the report of CFL which was final and conclusive and the report of the Public Analyst cannot be looked into.