STATE OF H.P. Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1987 on December 23, 1996 by which she set aside an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated December 9, 1986 in case No. 6-III of 1985.

(2.) The Respondent was the original accused. A complaint was filed against him by the Food Inspector, Hamirpur for an offence punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the prosecution was that in 1984 the complainant was serving as Food Inspector in Hamirpur District. The accused was having a Kirana shop at Mahal in Hamirpur District. On November 13, 1984, at about 1.1.5 p.m., the complainant visited the business premises of the accused. The accused had kept about 6 kgs. of Ajwain for sale to public. The complainant showed his willingness to take sample of Ajwain for analysis. Accordingly, the accused sold the commodity under the notice as required by Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (copy of which was reproduced at Ex. PA) to the complainant. Payment of Rs. 6 vide receipt Ex. PB was also made by the complainant to the accused for such sale. The article of food purchased by the complainant was then divided into three equal parts in three clean and dry bottles. The bottles were duly packed, labelled and sealed. Observing necessary formalities, including taking of signatures on each bottle by Panchas as well as by the accused, the samples were sent to Local Health Authority at Kandaghat. Sampling was done in the presence of both the Panchas; Amar Nath (PW 3) and Mool Raj (PW-4). The Public Analyst caused the sample analysed and vide his report, Ex. PE declared the result of the analysis as under: <TAB> 1. Organic extraneous matter = 4% 2. Inorganic extraneous matter = 5% 3. Living insects = 2 living larva on 22.11.84. 4. Insect fragments = Nil. 5. Rodent contamination = 3 pieces of rodent excreta.</TAB>

(3.) The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the organic extraneous matter was in excess by 1% and inorganic extraneous matter was in excess by 3% than the maximum prescribed limit. He also opined that the sample contained two living larva and three pieces of rodent excreta. From the report, thus, prima facie, it was felt that the accused had committed offence punishable under the Act and hence sanction was granted to prosecute him. The Food Inspector, drafted a complaint, Ext. PG and presented the same in the Court on January 31, 1985. Notice was sent to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act (Ext. PW-2/A) which was received by the accused on February 9, 1985. The Court in the light of the averments made in the complaint and accompanying documents found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 16(l-A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, a summons was issued to him in response to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The accused applied to have an opinion of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The prayer was allowed vide an order dated March 26, 1985 and second part of the sample which was with the Local Health Authority was sent to the Central Food Laboratory with seals intact. As per report of the Central Food Laboratory (Ex. PX), the sample was not found to be in accordance with the standard. The relevant part of the report of the Central Food Laboratory read thus :