STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEEPAK SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal the State has challenged the acquittal of the accused Deepak Sood by the Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. (sic) of 1986 decided on May 23, 1987.

(2.) THE accused was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Food Act') and was sentenced by the trial Court to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. This judgment was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Shimla who by the impugned decision, allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court's judgment. It is this judgment which has been assailed by the State through this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the parties reiterated the submissions during the course of arguments in this case. Mr. D.D. Sood submitted that the sample of curd was not homogenous nor any attempt was made to make it so by the Food Inspector before the sample was taken. In order to sustain this submission, reference to the statement of Amarjit Bedi (PW-1) was made. This statement has been examined. True it is that this witness has been declared hostile but on this question he has specifically stated that the curd was straight way taken from the Kundi and poured into the bottles. During cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, the same statement has been adhered to. The accused has also stated that although there was an electricity churning machine affixed in the shop, it was not made use of by the Food Inspector before the sample was taken. There is no reason to disbelieve this witness on this aspect of the case. Making the sample homogenous for the purpose of analysis is necessary. For taking the sample of curd the proper method is that curd should be divided vertically and the entire component should be taken, churned properly and then divided into three parts so that it becomes homogenous and a representative sample. The object is to exclude the possibility of accumulation of layers of non-fat milk solids or milk solid fats in a predominate manner in one sample out of three samples collected in 3 different bottles. To some extent, this variation is clear from the two reports in this case. The view I am taking finds support from 1983(1) SCC 135 : (Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madan Lal Ramlal Sharma); 1984(1) F.A.C. 169 (State of Haryana v. Assa Ram); 1984(2) F.A.C. 205 (Raj Pal v. The State of Punjab); 1986(2) F.A.C. 226 (Raju v. State) and 1991 Cri. L.J. NoC 18 (Orissa); Ramachandra Sahu v. State of Orissa). I, therefore, hold that in the present case the curd sample is not a representative sample at all.