STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMBALAL LALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 17.10.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Keshod in Criminal Case No. 31 of 1985 acquitting the accused of the charges of offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and issued a notice against the concerned Local Health Authority for recovering the compensation amount of Rs.2000-00 and the same was dropped later on. This court has granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 28.12.1993.

(2.) The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused running in the name of "Umiya Dudhyalaya" on 13th November, 1984 at Keshod. The complainant called one Shri Harsukhbhai Jadavbhai Patel as panch witness before collecting the sample from the shop of the accused. In the shop, 20 ltrs. cane of milk was laying, wherefrom, the accused was selling milk. The milk was described as separate milk. After introducing himself as a Food Inspector and intending to collect the sample for analysis, the complainant has purchased 700 ml. Of separate milk on payment of Rs.1-05ps and collected the cash memo bearing signature of the accused and panch witness thereon. That cash memo is exhibited at Ex.21 on record. The receipt of money is exhibited at Ex.22. The sample milk was thereafter divided into three equal parts and collected in cleaned, orderless, dried, transparent glass bottles. The glass bottles were sealed with the help of airtight cape so as to prevent any article or particles or moisture from entering. The requisite preservatives were added before sealing the sample and the bottlers were packed in strict compliance of the Rules. The panchnama of taking sample was drawn. The bottles were taken to the office of the Food Inspector on 14.11.1984. The form No. 7 was filled in and one part of the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis at Bhuj and the specimen seal was also sent separately. The receipt for sending the sample through S.T. Parcel is produced at Ex.54. The office copy of the forwarding letter and form are produced at Exs. 25 and 26 and registered AD Slip is produced at Ex.27, remaining two parts of the samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Junagadh. The office copy of intimation to the Local Health Authority is at Ex.28, receipt received from the Public Analyst, Bhuj is at Ex.29, the details of sample received from the Public Analyst is at Ex.31. The report of the Public Analyst, declaring that the sample food article was not in conformity with the standard laid down under the Rules and other papers were sent to the Local Health Authority for obtaining permission for lodging prosecution. The Local Health Authority has accorded its sanction, which is produced at Ex.34 and on the basis of that, a complaint was lodged. Local Health Authority was informed about the lodging of complaint and the said letter is produced at Ex.35. The Local Health Authority has issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act to the accused, the office copy whereof is at Ex.36. The registered AD Slip intimating that the notice was issued to the accused is at Ex.37. The accused had applied to the trial Court for sending the remaining part of the sample food articles for analysis vide his application dated 2.3.1985 at Ex.84. The Court has allowed the said application vide order dated 7.6.1985. The said order allowing the application was challenged in Revision Application No. 12 of 1985, which was ultimately rejected on 3.6.1986. The central Food Laboratory report is at Ex.16 on the record, which also indicates that the sample food article was not in conformity with the standard of 'skimmed milk' laid down in PFA Rules and the matter had proceeded further. It appears from the record that the panch witness was examined at Ex. 18 and 50. The learned APP before the trial Court moved an application under Ex. 51 under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appropriate action against the panch as he had not deposed in the correct manner in the court. The court issued notice at Ex. 52 to the panch. The panch witness Harsukhbhai applied for time, which came to be granted and he filed his reply to the notice contending that as he is ignorant of the court proceedings, he may be pardoned, however, he maintained his say that he was not aware of the letter, which he has signed, as the Food Inspector was public servant and therefore, he requested him to sign. The learned trial Court has framed as many as five issues (i) Whether the prosecution proves it beyond doubt that the accused has committed an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act, 1954 on his selling separate milk sample to the Food Inspector on 13.11.1984? (ii) As the panch witness Harsukhbhai Jadavjibhai Patel on 17.7.1992 has given testimony, which was far from the truth recorded at Ex.50, can he be proceeded against him under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and be punished? (iii) Whether an order could be passed against the complainant for compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (iv) Whether Shri K.M. Patel, Assistant Director, Local Health Authority, Food and Drugs Control, Junagadh is liable to be prosecuted under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (v) what order? The learned trial Court has answered the issue No. 1 in negative, issue No. 2 in affirmative, issue No. 3 in negative, issue No. 4 in affirmative and issue No. 5 as per his order. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges against him on technical reasons. The trial Court imposed fine of Rs.200/- in default thereof, 20 days Simple Imprisonment and detention till rising of the court upon panch witness Harsukhbhai Jadavji Patel. The Court had as stated herein above, issued notice calling upon Shri K.M. Patel, Assistant Director, as to why compensation of Rs.2000/- may not be recovered from him, which came to be dropped later on under order dated 30.11.1993 and the trial Court also sent the intimation and copy of his order to Commissioner of Food and Drugs Control, Gandhinagar for taking appropriate action as per Criminal Manual para 173(2) against Shri K.M.Patel, Assistant Director for issuance consent contrary to the prevailing rules and lacking absolute devotion to duty. This impugned order dated 17.10.1992 is assailed in the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. K.C. Shah, learned Addl.P.P. has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is bereft of tenable reasoning and ex-facie perverse and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri Shah has submitted that sample food article was reported to be adulterated and not in conformity with the standard laid down in PFA Rules by the Central Food Laboratory, the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory being a conclusive piece of evidence on the aspect of the adulteration, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused present respondent. The reasoning put forward by the trial Court have no support of the provision of law and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The director of Central Food Laboratory has in turn stated that the sample food article was not in conformity with the standard laid down in PFA Rules and therefore, that being a conclusive piece of evidence, the court ought not to have gone beyond that and say that as the standards of 'separate milk' are not prescribed under Rules, the report cannot be believed. Shri Shah has submitted that the standards of schemed milk have rightly been applied by the Central Food Laboratory and therefore, report ought to have been considered to be a conclusive piece of evidence for convicting the accused present respondent. Shri Shah has also submitted that separate milk is a colloquial term employed by the vendor and the Food Inspector, but that itself may not have effect of changing characteristic of sample food article i.e. 'skimmed milk'. The process making of 'skimmed milk' is well known and word 'separate milk' is used to indicate the milk, which actually a 'skimmed milk' and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have considered that the standards of 'separate milk' were not laid down. Shri Shah has also submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is otherwise also erroneous and so perverse and has resulted into total miscarriage of justice. Shri Shah has submitted that the trial Court's judgment, if not reversed then, it would certainly have very adverse effect upon the functioning of public servants like Food Inspector and Local Health Authority and such finding is required to be deprecated by this court. Shri Shah has submitted that the trial Court ought not to have imposed punishment upon the panch witness without following the due procedure of law as it seen from the record, the notice issued to the panch witness, has remained as it is, and without coming to the definite conclusion, which can be arrived only after the conclusion of the trial and after affording full fledged opportunity to the accused, the court has straight way imposed punishment, which is untenable in eye of law. Shri Shah has further submitted that trial Court has also issued a notice to the Local Health Authority Shir K.M.Patel, which was also uncalled for and ofcourse, which was later on withdrawn, however, the trial Court's sending copy of his order to the Government of Gujarat and observation in respect of Local Health Authority were also uncalled for and may work as serious deterrent on the functioning of Public servants like Local Health Authority and Food Inspector. Shri Shah submits that thus, in view of this perverse finding and approach of the trial Court, impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed.