Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sucha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2009

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
Sucha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/235431/ 1
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.
Sucha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/235431/ 2
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.
Sucha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/235431/ 3
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
Sucha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/235431/ 4