COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. HUKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference was made on 19.05.2011 by the learned ACMM II, New Delhi, against the Respondent Hukam Singh, the then SDM/the Local Health Authority (LHA for short) who was entrusted with the responsibility of keeping two sealed samples of article of food which was collected from the premises of one Brijender Kumar in connection with the complaint case no.63/2011 (Food Inspector (Delhi Administration) vs. Brijender Kumar) registered under Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act for short). The sample for food article in question was of Lal Jeera (a food item). Out of the three samples which were made out of the seized food article, one was sent to the public analyst whereas the two other were handed over to the Respondent for safe custody. The sample sent to the public analyst was found to be adulterated for it contained synthetic colouring matters.

(2.) SECTION 16 (1A) of the PFA Act gives a right to the accused to get the second sample tested by the Central Forensic Laboratory. This could be done only through the sample which was deposited and preserved with LHA.

(3.) IT appears that the accused exercised such right and consequently the samples with the LHA were directed to be produced before the Court of the Learned ACMM on 19.04.2011 vide order dated 15.04.2011. On the abovementioned date, the learned ACMM was informed by the Field Assistant of the LHA that the samples were damaged by rat bites. The court, on finding the samples to be totally damaged, got the said samples resealed with the seal of the Court and by an order dated 19.04.2011 asked for an explanation from the Respondent herein Hukam Singh as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him. The Court below suspected collusion on the part of the Respondent for the purposes of frustrating the prosecution, thereby making him liable for obstructing the process of justice.