STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is State appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the acquittal of respondents in case FIR No. 5 dated 10.1.1990 P.S. Civil Lines, Patiala registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') for violation of Clause 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Compounded Cattle, Food, Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures Order, 1988 (for brevity 'the Order').

(2.) THE prosecution version as disclosed in the FIR is that on 14.9.1989 Atma Singh, Deputy Director, Dairy Development Patiala accompanied by Parshotam Dass and Darshan Singh, Poultry Extension Officer, Ludhiana and Assistant Dairy Extension Officer, Hoshiarpur respectively visited the premises of the accused respondent Jagdish Chand son of Brij Lal. The cattle feed was available in the shop for sale and Jagdish Chand was present. Out of 5 bags one cattle feed bag was taken at random and sample was drawn. Three samples were taken out of the said bag. It is stated that they were spread on a newspaper which was dried and cleaned. Thereafter the sample was made homogeneous. Three samples of cattle freed weighing about 400 gms. each were taken. The cattled feed was put in dry and clean plastic bags and then air was relieved from those bags. The sealed bags were put in three cotton bags. Sample proformas were inserted in each of the bags and thereafter the cotton bags were tied with string and sealed with the seal of Dairy Extension Officer, Ludhiana Parshotam Dass at four different places. One part of the sample was handed over to the accused and the remaining two were retained by Parshotam Dass. Seizure memo was prepared and signed by Parshotam Dass and Darshan Singh. It was also signed by accused Jagdish Chand. On the basis of the complaint submitted by Atma Singh, FIR was recorded being FIR No. 5 of 10.1.1990, both the accused were charged under Section 7 of the Act for having violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order. They claimed trial. The special Judge, Patiala on the basis of the evidence led has found them not guilty of the charged offences. The brief resume of the reasons given by the Special Judge is as under : a) Atma Singh, Deputy Director was not authorised to take the sample; b) the procedure adopted for taking sample is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 374 (P&H); c) no proper investigation has been carried out and it is has not been pointed out whether Jagdish Chand was the sole proprietor or partner of the firm; and d) it is not clear as to whether accused No. 1 Jagdish Chand was the manufacturer.

(3.) SHRI D.S. Bishnoi, learned State counsel has argued that all the witnesses namely PW.1 to PW.4 have supported the version disclosed in the FIR that the sample was not in accordance with the required standard as laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards (for brevity 'BIS'). The sample was found to the sub-standard and below 'BIS' specifications. According to the ld. State Counsel, the discrepancy pointed out with regard to the procedure of sample cannot be considered fatal to the success of the prosecution. He has further submitted that in the cross-examination nothing worthwhile could be extracted from the afore-mentioned four witnesses. The learned counsel has maintained that no prejudice has been suffered by the accused respondent on account of the procedure followed for taking sample. He has also placed reliance on the report of the Analyst Ex.PW3/A and argued that it clearly showed that the sample was found to be sub-standard. He has placed reliance on the opinion expressed by the Analyst in the afore-mentioned document which reads as under :