Holding

The conviction of the appellant under the Food Adulteration Act is not sustainable and is set aside.

Summary

The prosecution alleged that a batch of Tata iodized salt sold by the appellant, Mohinder Kumar, was deficient in iodine, violating the Food Adulteration Act. The first accused, Naresh Kumar, purchased five packets, which were tested and found to contain only 5 ppm iodine instead of the required 15 ppm, and he claimed the salt was bought from the appellant based on Bill No. 4987. The trial court, assuming the appellant had admitted the genuineness of the invoice, convicted him under sections 7 and 16 of the Act; the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Court and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the invoice was in the name of a third person, Darshan Lal, and no evidence proved that the appellant actually sold the adulterated salt to the first accused, nor was the bill’s authenticity established. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction could not be sustained and set it aside, cancelling the bail bond. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant can be convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when the only evidence of sale is an invoice whose authenticity and the identity of the purchaser are not proved.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16, s. 19(3), s. 20(A), s. 7

Subjects

Food adulterationIodized saltSection 7Section 16Invoice authenticityConviction set asideCriminal appealSection 20(A)Section 19(3)

Judgment

MOHINDER KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

JANUARY 15, 2004

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] B

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954:

S. 7 rlw s.16, ss. 19(3) and WA-Prosecution u/s 7 read with s. 16- C
Salt of a particular brand sold by shopkeeper-Found deficient of requisite
quantity of iodine-Prosecution of shopkeeper-Accused contending that he
purchased the article from the appellant. the original vendor-Prosecution of
appellant-First accused acquitted and appellant convicted by trial court-
Conviction and sentence confirmed by High Court-Held, the trial court
proceeded on the assumption that the appellant admitted genuineness of the D
Bill and that he conceded that he had sold the adulterated article to the first
accused-But the evidence on record shows that the bill produced by the first
accused was standing in the name of a third person and there is no evidence
to show as to who was that person-In the absence of specific evidence as to
whom invoice was issued and to whom adulterated article was sold by the E
appellant it is difficult to prove complicity of the appellant-Unfortunately,
neither the trial court nor the appellant adverted to this aspect of the case-
Appellate court had ample power to invoke section 20(A) of the Act to prosecute
the person who was really guilty of the offence punishable under the Act-As
the genuineness of the bill is not proved before the court, the conviction and
sentence against the appellant is not sustainable under the law-Conviction F
and sentence set aside.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
760 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1997 of the Punjab and G
Haryana High Court in Crl. R. No. 637 of 1997.

R.S. Jain, Durgainder Singh and S. Singh for the Appellant.

D.P. Singh, V.K. Garg and Ms. A. Toor for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
H
529
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A Th is appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for
the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Food
Adulteration Act. The appellant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jagadhari along with first accused Naresh Kumar and he was
found guilty of the charge against him. The trial Magistrate acquitted the first
B accused Naresh Kumar and the present appellant was found guilty and was
sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
Rs. 1000 in default fu1ther imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He preferred
an appeal before the Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction and
sentence. The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed in-limine.

C Th(: prosecution case is that on 24.2.1988 PW-I Food Inspector of
Chhachhrauli along with Doctor working in the local authority visited the
shop of 1st accused Naresh Kumar and purchased 5 packets of Iodized Tata
Salt. He prepared samples in accordance with law and sent the same for
examination by the Public Analyst. Report of the analyst indicated that the
D sample did not conform to the standard prescribed as it did not contain
iodine. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the first accused
was informed of the result. Thereafter, first accused filed application for,
sending remaining sample for the examination by the Central Food Laborato~
The report from the Central Food Laboratory also disclosed that the sample
did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules as it
E contained only 5.0 ppm of iodine as against the required quantity of 15.0
ppm of iodine. The Food Inspector launched prosecution against the first
accused. At the time of purchase he had served the first accused with Form-
VI notice and in the notice it was indicated that Iodized Tata Salt purchase
from Mis. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor marketing Maharaja Agarsen Marg,Yamuna
p Nagar (Ambala) against Bill No. 4987 dated 27.1.1998. But Food Inspector
did not imp lead original vendor as an accused. During the course of the trial,
first accused Naresh Kumar filed application under section 14-A of the Food
Adulteration Act and furnished the address and other particulars of the present
appellant. The appellant herein was thus impleaded as the second accused.

G On the side of the prosecution PW-I the Food Inspector and PW-2
Doctor, who accompanied the PW-I were examined. During the course of
the cross-examination of PW-I the Bill No. 4987 allegedly issued by Mis.
Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor Chand was marked as Ex. PA. The report of the local
authority as well as the report of Central Food Laboratory showed that the
H sample did not contain the required quantity of Iodine.
MOHINDER KUMAR v.STATE OF HARY ANA 531
. ..,
The first accused by way of defence relied on the invoice 'allegedly A
issued by the appellant. But the invoice allegedly issued by the appellant
herein was in the name of one Darshan Lal. It is pertinent to note that the first
accused Naresh Kumar did not adduce any evidence to show that he had
purchased the adulterated article from the appellant under the said invoice.
Though section 19(3) of the Act is an enabling provision by which accused
could have given evidence by appearing as a witness. When the present
B
appellant was questioned under section, 313, Cr.P.C. he gave a statement to
the following effect:

"I have not sold any salt to accused Naresh Kumar vide Bill No. 4987
till the day. The salt sold vide Bill No. 4987 dt. 27.1.1988 is not Tata
Salt. IfNaresh Kumar have made any such statement to F.I. the same
c
is wrong and devoid of any basis."

: The Trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant admitted
the genuineness of the Bill No. 4987 and that he conceded that he had sold
the Tata Salt to the first accused Naresh Kumar but the evidence on record
.shows that the bill produced by the first accused Naresh Kumar was standing
D
in the name of one Darshan Lal and there is no evidence to show that who
was Darshan Lal. That apart, in the bill it is not specifically stated that it was
sold in packed condition. Only the weight of th~ article is shown as 3,
presumably 3 quintal and the total amount paid is Rs. 375, the value being
Rs. 125 per quintal. Had Naresh Kumar chosen to give evidence to explain E
the invoice obtained by him the matter would have been different. ln the
absence of specific evidence as to whom invoice was issued and to whom
adulterated article was sold by the appellant it is difficult to prove complicity
of the appellant. Unfortunately, neither the Trial Court nor the appellate

• Court adverted to this aspect of the case. The Court had ample power to
invoke section 20(A) of the Act to prosecute the person who was really guilty F
of the offence punishable under the Act.

The conviction of the appellant was solely based on the invoice allegedly
issued to Darshan. Lal. As the genuinesses or that bill of the invoice is not
proved before the Court, the conviction and sentence against the appellant is G
not sustainable under the law. We set aside the conviction and sentence and
allow the appeal. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.

The appeal is disposed of.

R.P. Appeal disposed of H