STATE Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This leave to appeal petition has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 2nd July, 2008 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitting the Respondent on an appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short PFA Act).

(2.) Brjefly, the case of the Petitioner (State) is that on 24th June, 1996 at about 5.15 p.m. Food Inspector Sh. Suniti Kumar Gupta purchased a sample of 'Paneer', a food article for analysis from Satish Kumar who was carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Ashok Dairy, 25 DDA Market, Defence Enclave, Delhi where the said food article was stored for sale of human consumption. The sample consisted of 750 gms of the Paneer which was taken from an open tray having no label declaration. The sample of paneer was cut into small pieces with the help of clean and dry stainless steel knife on a clean and dry polythene paper. The sample was thoroughly mixed with the same knife and then was divided into three equal parts and each part was put in separate clean and dry bottle, 20 drops of formalin were put in each bottle. Each part was packed, fastened and sealed separately as per the provisions of the PFA Act and Rules. Vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. It is alleged 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 sent to the Public Analyst with the 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 did not conform to the standards because the moisture content was 60.16 %, aid fat on the dry weight basis was 44.72%.

(3.) The Respondent exercised his right under Section 13(2) of PFA Act and requested to get the second counterpart of the sample to be analyzed from the Director CFL. The Director, CFL opined that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard as moisture content in the sample contained was 57.1 % and fat on dry basis was 31.75%. Thus the sample was opined to be not conforming to the standard laid down under the provisions of PFA Act. 1954 and Rules.