STATE Vs. DAYA NAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Gopal Singh (PW-1), then functioning as Local Health Authority (LHA) under the erstwhile Delhi Administration had purchased a sample of khoya from the shop of the respondent at about 6.00 p.m. on 07.01.1992. The sample statedly was divided into three parts, one of which was sent to public analyst where upon it being tested resulted in report (Ex. PW1/E) dated 14.01.1992 being issued to the effect that it did not conform to the standards prescribed because the milk fat was less than the prescribed minimum limit of 20.0%, it having been found to the extent of 17.5% only. The trial court record reveals that on 02.06.1992, complaint on the basis of these allegations (Ex. PW1/G) was submitted in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate by PW-1 seeking prosecution of the respondent and one other person Giriraj Sharma for offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("PFA" for short). The record further reveals that on 03.06.1992, an intimation was given, amongst others, to the respondent, about the report of the public analyst dated 14.01.1992 calling him upon to approach the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate by appropriate application within ten days of the receipt of the said communication in case he desired to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL). It appears that on 25.06.1992, the respondent moved such an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate which was allowed and the second counterpart of the sample which had been drawn was sent to CFL. The report of CFL eventually came, it being dated 20.07.1992 (Ex. PX) indicating the milk fat content in the sample to have been found to be 17.2% and thus, below the minimum prescribed limit of 20%. It is, primarily, on the basis of this evidence that the trial court by its judgment dated 05.03.2003 held the respondent guilty and by subsequent order dated 15.03.2003 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 3,000.00.

(2.) The respondent assailed the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence by criminal appeal no.04/2003 in the court of sessions. His appeal was accepted and the impugned judgment and order on sentence of the trial court were set aside, he being acquitted by judgment dated 13.01.2005.

(3.) The State is now in appeal before this court to challenge the view taken by the first appellate court, leave to appeal in terms of section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) having been granted by order dated 07.02006.