CIVIL APPEAL 730 of 2004 on 30 November 1997

Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.730 of 2004Date of Decision 20.12.2010Om Parkash...... PetitionerVERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate,for the petitioner.

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,for the respondent-State.

*****

A.N.JINDAL, J:

Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.03.2004,passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal of theaccused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgmentdated 04/11.02.2003, passed by the trial Court, convicting and sentencinghim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to paya fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 61(i)(a) of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act').

On 30.11.1997 at about 7:30 a.m., Megh Nath, GovernmentFood Inspector (PW1), accompanied by Dr.P.D.Mehra, Medical Officer,Government Hospital, Rewari (PW2) intercepted the accused near HousingBoard, Dharuhera and found him in possession of 17-18 kilograms of cow'smilk, contained in three drums, carried out over the scooter bearingregistration No.DEE-3600, for public sale. After serving a requisite noticeon Form No.VI, he stirred the milk with plunger and after making it uniform, purchased 750 mls of said milk. Thereafter, he divided thepurchased milk into three equal parts and poured it in three empty, clean anddry bottles. Necessary quantity of formaline was also added in each bottleas preservative. The said bottles were properly stoppered, sealed, labelledand wrapped as per rules and one sample bottle was sent to Public Analystwho vide his report Ex.PE observed that milk fat as well as milk solids weredeficient than the prescribed standard, as such the same was adulterated.Copy of the report of the public Analyst was sent to the accused throughLocal Health Authority and a complaint was also filed. The accused alsoavailed the right of re-analysis. The Central Food Laboratory, Pune, vide itsreport Ex.PJ revealed that the contents of the milk solids not fat as well asmilk fat were deficient. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused wassummoned and charged.

On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Theappeal, preferred by him, also failed.

Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has notraised the serious contentions over the finding of fact recorded by the trialCourt knowingfully well that re-appreciation of evidence at the revisionalstage was not permissible. However, much stressed contention, made byhim, is that prosecution has not been launched by a duly authorized person.Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector (PW1), who launched theprosecution, was not competent to do the same. According to him, he wasthe Government Food Inspector, posted in Civil Hospital, Pataudi, and wasgiven additional charge of Rewari for the purpose of taking sample of thefood articles as per letter Ex.PA, issued by the Director, General Health Services, Haryana but vide said letter or any other letter, he was notauthorized to launch the prosecution. The letter, authorizing him to launchthe prosecution was issued by the Director Health Services, Haryana, whocould not delegate the powers to launch the prosecution upon the FoodInspector.

To the contrary, Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana, submits that vide letter Ex.PA, Megh Nath (PW1) was not onlyauthorized for taking sample of the food articles in Rewari but alsoauthorized to attend the Court cases. Before discussing the letter Ex.PA, Ineed to reproduce Section 20(1) of the Act which reads as under:- “Cognizance and trial of offences.

(i) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being anoffence under section 14 or section 14A,] shall be institutedexcept by, or with the written consent of the CentralGovernment or the State Government or a person authorised inthis behalf, by general or special order, by the CentralGovernment or the State Government)

Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act maybe instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer associationreferred to in section 12, if he or it produces in court a copy ofthe report of the public analyst along with the complaint.”

Further sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules after consultation with the committee andsubject to the condition of previous publication, for the purpose of givingeffect to the provisions of the Act not falling within the purview of Section23. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that in particular and withoutprejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Governmentmay make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Actin matters not falling within the purview of section 23. Section 24 (2)(e) of the Act provides as under:- “24(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality ofthe foregoing power, such rules may- (e)Provide for the delegation of the powers and functionsconferred by this Act on the State Government or the Food(Health) Authority to subordinate authorities or to localauthorities.”

Vide Government notification No.2274-4HB11-77/17368 dated09.06.1977, Megh Nath was appointed to launch the prosecution, therefore,the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty ofthe prosecution to produce the notification before the trial Court has noforce. A Gazette notification issued by the State Government is an officialdocument and Court can always take its judicial notice as per the provisionsof Evidence Act.

Notification bearing No.2274-4HB11-77/17368 dated 09.06.1977 issued by Haryana Government, runs as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) ofSection 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(Central Act 37 of 1954), read with Rule 8 of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Rules, 1955, and in supersession of HaryanaGovernment notification No.8215-5HB11-74/32953 dated 22[nd]October, 1974 and all other notifications issued in this behalf,the President of India hereby appoints the persons mentionedbelow to be Food Inspector for the local areas of theirrespective jurisdiction except Railway Stations and Railwaypremises.”

On conjoint reading of the two notifications, referred to above, Magh Nath, Government Food Inspector, was authorized to launch theprosecution. If as per Section 20(1), Megh Nath, Government FoodInspector, is competent to launch the prosecution, the next question arises

for consideration is that whether Rewari was within the local area ofjurisdiction of Megh Nath or not. During his cross-examination, he hasadmitted that he is posted at Pataudi. He further states that additionalcharge of Rewari was also given to him by Director General HealthServices, Haryana vide letter Ex.PA. Meaning thereby, he claims to havethe authority to launch the prosecution at Rewari by virtue of letter Ex.PAof DGHS, Haryana. As per letter Ex.PA, DGHS, Haryana, has extended thelocal area of jurisdiction of Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector fromPataudi to Rewari, Bawal and Kosli, therefore, I am of the consideredopinion that Megh Nath, GFI (PW1) is legally competent to launch theprosecution and file the present complaint at Rewari under Section 20(1) ofthe Act.

Thus, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the Court toquote that the prosecution launched by the complainant Megh Nath was notin any way vitiated.

The other argument, raised by the counsel for the petitioner isthat in view of the marginal deficiency in the case, some lenient view couldbe taken. In this regard, it is observed that the adulteration has over-shadowed and rather considerably damaged the human frames and if theaccused are released while extending concessions to them then that mayseriously affect the social fabric, as such, in the given circumstances of thecase, no grounds for reduction in the sentence are made out.

In the wake of aforesaid discussions, this petition, being devoidof any merit, is dismissed.

(A.N.Jindal) Judge