STATE Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 13.4.1994 wherein the respondent Harbhajan Singh had been acquitted of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA). The brief facts are as follows:

(2.) THE trial judge on the basis of the aforenoted evidence oral and documentary had concluded that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and a consequential acquittal. The court concluded that the bottles were not sealed as contemplated under Rule 22 A of the said Rules. What had largely being weighed in the mind of the Trial Court was the fact that the samples which were taken were not property homogenized and not being a representative sample which was also evident from the fact that there were marked variations between the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director CFL. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted.

(3.) THESE arguments have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is pointed out that the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity; an order of acquittal unless and until it is perverse cannot be interfered with lightly. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of the High Court of Madras reported as, 1990(2) PFA Cases 196 State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Muthukirshnan submission being that facts of that case are almost similar; in that case bottles of aerated water had been drawn as a sample; the court had noted that the sealing procedure as contemplated in Rule 22 A of the PFA Rules has a positive intent and where the prosecution has failed to bring its case within the protective cover of Rule 22A a benefit of doubt has to be granted to the appellant. Reliance has also been placed upon, 1992(1) PFA Cases 58 State of Punjab Vs. Daulat Ram where also a sample of carbonated water had been taken but the bottles had neither been opened nor their contents were mixed up; the samples were not divided into three parts by putting them in three separate dried and clean bottles; in this case also the Court had concluded that in such eventuality it cannot be said that such a sample was a representative sample. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as, 1981(II) PFA 351 Bhagwandass Vs. The State to support the same submission that where three bottles of aerated water were treated as three samples but the prosecution having failed to establish that the three bottles were of a uniform quality; benefit of doubt had accrued in favour of the appellant and he had been granted acquittal. Lastly reliance has been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as : 2012 Legal Eagle (DHC) 1844 Raja Ram Seth & Sons & Anr. Vs. Delhi Admn. to support his submission that where the report of the Public Analyst and of the Director of CFSL have varying contents, it cannot be said that the sample was a representative sample; benefit of doubt had accrued to the appellant in that case as well.