PRITAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sample of paneer purchased by the Government Food Inspector from accused petitioner Pritam Laloat 6.30 P.M. On November 30, 1981 was found to be adulterated. On being prosecuted for it under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 19S4, the accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed 10 be tried, Vide its impugned judgment dated March, 23, 1985 learned trial court convicted him of the commission of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs. 1000/as fine. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. In Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1988 learned lower Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated March 22, 1986 endorsed the findings of the learned trial court, maintained the conviction and sentence both and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgments of the learned two courts below Pritam Lal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1986 in this Court.

(2.) I have heard Shri S.C. Kapoor, Advocate, with Sarvshri Ashish Kapoor and Gurmohan Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri D.S. Bishnoi, D.A.G. Haryana for the State respondent and perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

(3.) In all the three documents Exhibit PA, Exhibit PB and Exhibit PC the Food Inspector has used the werd Paneer (Cheese) for the sample purchased by him from the accused-petitioner. Standard for cheese and paneer set out in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is different. The sample taken from the accused conforms to the standard of cheese but not of panneer. Accused petitioner is certainly entitled to the benefit of this misdescription of the article of food purchased by the Food Inspector from him in Exhibit PA to Exhibit PC. In TilakRaj v. State of Punjab Prevention of Food Adulteration cases 426 Honble Mr. Justice I.S. Tiwana (as his lordship then was) observed, So far as the second argument of the learned counsel is concerned, I feel, he is on firm ground. It is clear from notice, Exhibit PA; receipt, Exhibit PB, and the sample memo, Exhibit PC, that what was taken into possession by Dr. S.Dutta, was red Chillies. The report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit PD, shows that what was analysed by him was chillies powder. Thus it is obvious that the material taken into possession was not analysed by the Public Analyst. The argument that in Exhibits P A, PB and PC it was wrongly mentioned that red chillies had been purchased or taken into possession, does not carry conviction. It is beyond comprehension as to how a man of the status and experience of Dr. S. Dutta could make such a mistake. Then further if the chillies purchased by the doctor was the material which was examined by the public Analyst and he found 1.S2 per cent dirt in the same, even then the same cannot be said to be adulterated in view of the Prerention of Food Adulteration Rules, read with A.05.05 of Appendix B framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The rule envisages extraneous matter, such as, dirt etc. in the chillies upto 5.0 per cent. The accused is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt on this score and thereby earns an acquittal.