STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Nos. 330 to 334 of 2008 titled as State of Punjab versus Parmajit Singh and others, are being disposed of by this judgment as common question of law and fact is involved in these petitions. The facts are gathered from Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2008. These are : That on 09.01.2008, Dr. Avtar Singh, Civil Surgeon, Patiala-Local Health Authority constituted a team of doctors for food sampling raids. On the aforesaid date and on the next day, this team raided the premises of Information Collection Centre, Shambhu Barrier, where 5 trucks carrying Gur/Jaggery were intercepted. This team found approximately 21 ton (210 Qts.) Gur/Jaggery loaded in Truck No. PB-02-AC-9693, 20 tons Gur/Jaggery in Truck No. RJ-13-G-6115, 15 tons in Truck No. HR-59-B-1787, 21 tons Gur/Jaggery in Truck No. HR-38-J-2072 and 13 tons Gur/Jaggery in Truck No. HR-37-A-2990. Food Sampling team after following the provisions of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, 'the Act') took samples from the trucks i.e. one sample of Gur/Jaggery from each truck and same was sent to Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh. Reports were received and samples were found to be adulterated. The recovered Gur/Jaggery being perishable and adulterated, the Local Health Authority, Patiala, as well as Food Inspectors instead of disposing of the recovered food items by themselves, moved a joint application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura for disposing of the same in accordance with law. The accused/applicants moved an application seeking release of the above mentioned trucks along with Gur/Jaggery by claiming that the same was not meant for human consumption and it was raw material of the cattle feed. On 22.01.2008, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, accepted the application in all 5 cases by single order directing destruction of Gur/Jaggery instead of releasing the same to the accused/applicants, who feeling aggrieved therewith, preferred revision which was accepted by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge (Ad hoc) Patiala, directing the release of above mentioned commodity. The proceedings under Section 10(4) and 10(4-A) ibid are clearly distinguishable from the procedure provided by Section 11(4), 11(5) of the Act as the same apply when Section 10(4) and 10(4-A) of the Act do not apply and in case of perishable adulterated items, the provisions of Section 10(4) and 10(4-A) are applicable. The learned Revisional Court was wrong in observing that in the report of Public Analyst it has not been mentioned that Gur/Jaggery was not fit for human consumption for the reason that firstly, there is no requirement of law which cast statutory obligation on the part of the Public Analyst to specify the fitness or unfitness for human consumption, and secondly, the Court failed to take note of exhaustive definition 'adulterated' as defined in Section 2 of the Act. Section 2(m) of the Act clearly prescribes that if the quality or purity of the article falls below prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantity not within the prescribed limits of variability, the said food article will still be considered to be adulterated even if it may not be injurious to health. If the Gur/Jaggery in question is released, it will play havoc to the health of the public. The Revisional Court practically gave a license to the accused/applicants to recycle and to re-circulate by way of selling the adulterated food to the public, thus jeopardising the health and hygiene of the public. A sample taken by the Food Inspector was representative one as invoices clearly depicted that the whole of Gur/Jaggery was to be of the same kind and quality. These invoices further carry warranty in view of Section 14 of the Act. In these circumstances, the order dated 06.02.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala, be set aside and the order dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, be restored. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides going through the documents placed on record with due care and circumspection.

(2.) MS Manjri Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of State of Punjab-petitioner has urged with great eloquence that vide respective reports, the Public Analyst has opined that the Gur/Jaggery was found adulterated and this being a perishable commodity, the Food Inspector in exercise of his powers under Section 10(4) as well as 10(4-A) of the Act had sought permission to destroy the same and this prayer was rightly allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. She further pressed into service that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala, has gravely erred in observing that in his report, the Public Analyst has not mentioned that the whole Gur was found to be unfit for human consumption. As observed in re : Jatin Acharjee and another v. The State of Assam, 1985(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 164, the Public Analyst is not obligated to give such opinion. It has been further sought to be argued that the learned Additional Session Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala, has fallen in legal error by observing that "as the Gur has not been seized under Section 10(4) of the Act, so Section 11(4) of the Act does not apply to Gur/Jaggery belonging to the petitioner seized by the Food Inspector/Raiding Team as there is nothing on record to conclude that whole Gur was adulterated and was unfit for human consumption." To fortify her contentions, she has also invited attention towards the observations made by Full Bench of this Court in re : Budh Ram (deceased) v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 130, Smt. Manibai and another v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 434 and The State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 538.

(3.) PRIMARILY , it is to be noticed as to whether Gur/Jaggery in question falls within the definition of food. In case, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Kumar (supra), it is held that "Shakkar" falls within the definition of food as contained in Section 2(v) of the Act.