FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAJEEV BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CC No.98/2003 under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) TO briefly encapsulate the facts, a sample of Vanaspati was duly lifted from the respondent/vendor Sh. Rajeev Bhatia on 09.08.2002 by the Food Inspector Sh. Ranjit Singh. Upon analysis by the Public Analyst (PA) a report dated 28.08.2002 found the said sample to be not conforming to the standards required. Upon request of the respondent the second counterpart was sent to CFL which was also found non -conforming to the standards. By way of the impugned order the trial court has acquitted the accused persons on the ground that there are variations between PA and CFL reports.In the PA report free fatty acids were found 0.33% which was more than prescribed minimum limit of 0.25%. Baudouin test was found negative although it could have been positive. However, in CFL report, free fatty acids were found 0.34%, melting point was found 44oC and rancidity and Baudouin Test was found positive. The trial court held that either the sampling procedure was wrong or there was a lacuna at some stage in the analysis thereof or the time gap between the analysis of the two counterparts had a bearing thereupon so as to cause certain (physical and the chemical) changes therein to the prejudice of the accused persons.

(3.) THE solitary submission on behalf of the State is that since the CFL report was conclusive on the aspect, there was no need for the trial court to have looked at the PA report in this behalf. Further, it has also been suggested that the delay in sending the sample for testing was not on account of the petitioner. In this behalf the trial court has observed as follows: -