STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17 -7 -1985, Food Inspector Sh. S.L. Lamba P.W. 1 alongwith Dr. Mohan Dev Saini, Medical Officer, Sub Health Centre, Hariana was present at Pariana Road in connection with his official duty of taking food samples. Accused was seen coming on cycle carrying two drums of cow's milk each containing 20 kgs. The said Food Inspector took sample of the milk as empowered under section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called "Act"). In due course sample was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its report Ex. P1 dated 13 -8 -1985 opined that milk fat was found to be 5.5.% and milk solid not fat was found to be 6.8% in the sample analysed. Accordingly it was further opined that the contents of the sample were deficient in milk solid not fat by 20% of the prescribed standard. Apparently no deficiency was found regarding contents of milk fat. Minimum prescribed standard of the cow's milk is given in Item A. 11.01.11 (Appendix B), wherein minimum requirement of milk fat is 4.0% and that of milk solid not fat is 8.5% The milk having found to be adulterated one, complaint dated 28 -8 -1985 (Ex.PG) was filed by P.W. 1, S.L. Lamba in the competent Court. The complaint having been filed by a Government servant, the accused was summoned without examination of the Food Inspector. On appearing of accused in Court, Food Inspector. S.L. Lamba was examined as P.W. 1, Onkar Singh -Clerk of office of Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur was examined as P.W. 2 and Suraj Parkash, Assistant, Office of Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur was also examined, as P.W. 3.

(2.) STATEMENTS of PWs 2 and 3 need not be examined in detail for decision of this appeal. However, the statement of P.W. 1, S.L. Lamba needs analytic examination. After going through his statement, it is clear that he has not stated on oath even a single word that he ever tried to join any independent witness from the public before taking of the sample or even at the time of taking of the sample of the milk from the possession of the accused, as statutorily required under the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Matter does not end here. Even in the complaint Ex. PG, no such mention of any effort on his part to call any independent witness finds mention. Vide Ex. PD, he purchased the milk for preparing sample. There is no mention to that effect even in this receipt, of course it is purported to have been attested by one Munshi Ram and Dr. Mohan Dev Saini. Similarly no such mention to that effect is there in spot memo Ex. PE. No doubt the Food Inspector was not required to mention his efforts to join one or more independent persons during the process of taking sample in the aforesaid documents viz. Ex. PD and Ex. PE, but at least compliance of Section 10(7) should have been mentioned in the complaint Ex. PG by him and in his statement in the Court. In view of the aforesaid facts it shall have to be presumed that the Food Inspector, S.L. Lamba (P.W. 1) did not care to comply with the statutory directions as embodied in Section 10(7) of the Act. In view of this the case against the accused becomes highly doubtful. Trial Court has acquitted the accused on this sole ground of non -compliance of the aforesaid provisions of Law. The view adopted by the trial Court is legally correct. Hence calls for no interference by this Court in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

(3.) HOWEVER , Mr. S.S. Kang, appearing on behalf of the State argued that trial Court has wrongly disbelieved P.W. 1, S.L. Lamba being an official witness. Factually this contention is not correct. As already stated above, accused has been acquitted by the trial Court for non -compliance of provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act by the Food Inspector. Yet we have gone through the statement of Sh. S.L. Lamba, P.W. 1 and are of the opinion that the same does not inspire confidence. Besides his not joining any independent one or more persons before taking sample, his conduct in taking sample suffers from another inherent infirmity. It has been admitted by him that one another person namely Munshi Ram was also carrying milk and sample for analysis was also collected from him. That Munshi Ram has been made attesting witness to the documents viz. Exs. PD and PE and has also been cited as a witness in the complaint Ex. PIG. It is strange, that a Food Inspector would not care to call or join one or more independent persons, but would go to the extent of making a witness like Munshi Ram who is certainly under his thumb as sample of milk was also taken from him. This shows nothing but unfair procedure adopted by the Food Inspector. This creates dent in the prosecution case.