Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996
Date of Decision : October 05, 2009
Sucha Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Sucha Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his
conviction and sentence by both the courts below.
According to the prosecution version, Government Food
Inspector Teja Singh, accompanied by Dr. T. C. Wadhwa, intercepted the
petitioner on 29.08.1987, while the petitioner was carrying a drum
containing cow milk, on cycle, for sale. The Food Inspector purchased
750 mls milk from the petitioner as sample for analysis. One part of the
sample was sent to Public Analyst, Karnal, who after analysis gave report
that the milk was adulterated as milk solids not fat were deficient by 20%
than the minimum prescribed standard. Accordingly, Food Inspector
Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 2
instituted criminal complaint for prosecution of the petitioner under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short – the
Act).
Charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the
Act was framed against the petitioner after recording of pre-charge
evidence.
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide
judgment and order dated 12.01.1995, convicted the petitioner under
Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default
thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and
sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide
judgment dated 16.04.1996. Feeling still aggrieved, the convict has
preferred the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Teja
Singh – Government Food Inspector as PW-1 and Dr. T. C. Wadhwa as
PW-3. Both of them broadly stated according to prosecution version.
Jagdish – Clerk from the office of Local Health Authority appeared as PW-2
and stated from record that copy of report of Public Analyst was sent to the
petitioner, along with forwarding memo, by registered post.
The petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminating
circumstances and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that he was carrying
the milk for marriage of Karamvir Kaur daughter of his relative Manjit
Singh and not for sale. In defence, the petitioner examined Jinda (DW-1)
and Gurdial (DW-2). Both of them stated that the petitioner was not
Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 3
carrying on occupation of sale of milk. Jinda also stated that the petitioner
was carrying milk for marriage of daughter of Manjit Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
before taking sample, the milk was not stirred to make it homogeneous and
therefore, the petitioner deserves acquittal. Reliance in support of this
contention has been placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this
Court i.e. in the case of State of Haryana vs. Prabhu Dayal reported as
1992 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 212 and in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Suraj Mal reported as 1992 (1) Prevention of
Food Adulteration Cases 217. However, in both those cases, the factum
of stirring the milk to make it homogeneous before purchasing the sample
was not mentioned in the complaint and accompanying documents. In the
instant case, however, it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint as
well as accompanying contemporaneous documents that the milk was made
homogeneous before purchasing the sample. Consequently, both the
judgments are distinguishable on facts. Reliance has also been placed on a
judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Singh vs. State
of Haryana reported as 2003 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases
182. In that case, on the basis of evidence, it was concluded that it was not
proved that the milk was properly stirred and made homogeneous. In the
instant case, however, there are statements of Teja Singh – Food Inspector
and Dr. T. C. Wadhwa corroborated by contemporaneous documents that
the milk was stirred and made homogeneous before purchasing the sample.
Moreover, learned Appellate Court has placed reliance on a judgment of
Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Ramesh
Kumar reported as 1992 (1) Criminal Courts Judgment 325 and also on
a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Kirpa Ram reported as 1985 (2) FAC 39.
Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 4
In view of these judgments also, the aforesaid contention, as
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the milk
was not meant for sale, but was meant for marriage of the daughter of
Manjit Singh – a relative of the petitioner. This contention also cannot be
accepted because both the courts below, after appreciation of evidence, have
negatived this plea of the petitioner. In addition thereto, it may be noticed
that the petitioner did not even examine Manjit Singh in defence evidence,
for the marriage of whose daughter the petitioner was allegedly carrying
milk. There is no explanation for non-examination of Manjit Singh, who is
relative of the petitioner. Consequently, adverse inference arises against the
petitioner and his plea that he was carrying the milk for the marriage of
daughter of Manjit Singh and not for sale cannot be accepted and has been
rightly rejected by the courts below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next vehemently contended
that Teja Singh – Food Inspector stated that he had sent one part of the
sample to Public Analyst, Chandigarh, but report of Public Analyst, Karnal
has been produced in evidence and it has not been shown as to how the
sample part reached from Chandigarh to Karnal. The contention, although
apparently attractive, is found to be devoid of substance, on proper scrutiny.
Perusal of the complaint reveals that the sample part was sent to Public
Analyst, Haryana, Karnal. Perusal of postal receipt Ex.P-D, vide which the
sample was sent to Public Analyst, also reveals that the sample was sent to
Public Analyst, Karnal and not Chandigarh. It is, therefore, manifest that it
was only inadvertent slip of tongue that the Food Inspector Teja Singh in
the witness box stated that the sample was sent to Public Analyst,
Chandigarh. However, the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Karnal, as
revealed by postal receipt Ex.P-D, as well as the complaint instituted by the
Food Inspector, as also revealed by report of Public Analyst Ex.P-F.
Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 5
Consequently, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Labhaya vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and another reported as 1974 Crl. L. J. 672 and a
judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ganga Ram
reported as 2004 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 741, contended that no public
witness was joined at the time of taking sample and therefore, Section 10 (7)
of the Act was not complied with. This contention also cannot be accepted.
Statements of Teja Singh and Dr. T. C. Wadhwa are sufficient to prove the
prosecution case. They had no enmity with the petitioner so as to implicate
him in a false case. Their statements are as much creditworthy as those of
independent witnesses. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the
contemporaneous documents prepared at the spot that nobody was ready to
join as witness. It is a matter of common experience that no public person is
ready to join as witness in such cases so as to avoid inviting enmity with the
accused. There is no reason to discard the sworn statements of the Food
Inspector and the Medical Officer.
In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed that both the
courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner
based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be
perverse or illegal. Consequently, no interference with the said finding is
warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
As regards quantum of sentence, the petitioner has been
awarded minimum sentence prescribed by the Act and therefore, the
sentence also does not warrant reduction. It is correct that sample of the
milk was purchased from the petitioner 22 years ago. However, merely on
ground of lapse of said long period, sentence cannot be reduced to less than
the minimum sentence provided by the Act. On the contrary, the menace of
adulteration of food articles is assuming alarming proportions. It is causing
Crl. Revn. No. 311 of 1996 6
danger to the health of the Society. For this reason as well, the sentence
cannot be reduced to less than the minimum prescribed by the Act.
For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the
instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds
or shall be arrested, so as to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
October 05, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE