- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Raj Kumar Sharma And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On January 27, 1971, Food Inspector R.C. Kapoor of the New Delhi Municipal Committee took a sample of milk from a snack-bar located in the Cihanakva Cinema building, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The milk was represented to be buffalo milk used for preparing tea and coffee sold to customers. The Public Analyst's examination of the sample revealed deficiencies in milk fat (3.6% instead of the required 6%) and milk solids not fat (8.73% instead of the required 9%). The sample was purchased from Raj Kumar Sharma, who was said to be in charge of the snack-bar at the time.
Raj Kumar Sharma was prosecuted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Delhi. The Magistrate held that Sharma was merely one of many waiters and not the manager, found no coercion in the signing of papers by Sharma, noted the Food Inspector did not call independent witnesses during sample collection, and doubted whether the milk was represented as buffalo milk. The New Delhi Municipal Committee appealed against this acquittal with special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Raj Kumar Sharma was responsible as the person in charge of the snack-bar for selling adulterated milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
- Whether the procedures followed by the Food Inspector in taking the milk sample complied with the statutory requirements, including the presence of independent witnesses.
- Whether the milk sample was correctly identified and represented as buffalo milk, thus invoking the relevant quality standards.
- Whether the acquittal by the trial Magistrate was sustainable on the facts and law.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Raj Kumar Sharma was acting as the person in charge of the snack-bar and represented himself as the manager by signing the notice and receipt.
- Food Inspector Kapoor made honest efforts to secure independent witnesses during sample collection, fulfilling statutory requirements.
- The milk was clearly represented as buffalo milk, as indicated by signage in the snack-bar and admissions by Sharma.
- The milk sample was adulterated as per the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
- The acquittal was unjustified and the respondent should be convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Respondent's Arguments
- Raj Kumar Sharma claimed to be only one of many waiters and not the manager or person in charge.
- He alleged coercion and inducement by the Food Inspector and Sanitary Inspector to sign papers and make statements.
- The respondent denied that the milk was represented to be buffalo milk.
- Two employees of the cinema testified that Sharma was only a waiter, not the proprietor or manager.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Nathu Ram, 1972 FAC 63 (Delhi) | Requirement for Food Inspector to make honest efforts to secure independent witnesses during sample collection under Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. | The Court held that honest efforts by the Food Inspector to call independent witnesses suffice; failure to secure multiple witnesses does not invalidate the sample taking. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions, finding that the trial Magistrate failed to objectively consider the facts, resulting in unsustainable findings. It was undisputed that Food Inspector Kapoor visited the snack-bar and found about 10 kilograms of boiled milk. Kapoor stated that Sharma was managing the snack-bar, while Sharma claimed to be only a waiter.
Regarding independent witnesses, Kapoor made genuine efforts to secure their presence, ultimately obtaining the agreement of Sanitary Inspector S.C. Bhalla to witness the sample collection. The Court clarified that the law requires honest efforts, not absolute success, in securing independent witnesses.
Sharma had signed a notice and receipt indicating the milk was buffalo milk and that he was the manager, which the Court found could not have been coerced given his literacy and the circumstances. The Court rejected Sharma's claim of coercion and considered his role as the person in charge established.
The Court found the trial Magistrate's emphasis on the failure to identify the proprietor or licensee irrelevant to Sharma's liability as the vendor of adulterated milk. Evidence from Kapoor and Bhalla confirmed the milk was represented as buffalo milk, supported by signage in the snack-bar, contrary to the Magistrate's misappreciation of evidence.
The milk sample failed to meet the prescribed standards for buffalo milk fat and solids, confirming adulteration. Sharma did not claim the milk was cow milk, undermining his defense. The Court concluded the acquittal was unjustified and that the case was unsuitable for probation, as food adulteration offenses require deterrent punishment.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal order dated December 9, 1971, and convicted Raj Kumar Sharma under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
The respondent was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000, with an additional four months' imprisonment in default of payment. The Court ordered issuance of non-bailable warrants if Sharma did not surrender within three days.
The decision directly affects the parties by reversing the acquittal and imposing punishment on Sharma. No broader precedent beyond the application of existing law and procedural requirements was established.
Jagjit Singh, J.:— in the Cihanakva Cinema building, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, there is a snack-bar. On January 27, 1971 Pood Inspector R.C Kapoor of the New Delhi Municipal Committee took a sample of milk which, was being used in the snack-bar for preparing tea and coffee to be sold to customers. The milk was represented to be buffalo milk and on a part of the sample being analysed by the Public Analyst was found to be deficient to the extent of 2.4% in milk fat and 0.27% in milk solids not fat. The result of the analysis showed that the milk fat was only 3.6% and the percentage of milk solids not fat was 8.73
2. The sample of milk was purchased by Food Inspector Kapoor from Raj Kumar Sharma who, at the time of the sale, was said to be incharge of the snack-bar. On Raj Kumar Sharma being prosecuted for an offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 he was acquitted by Shri R.D Aggarwal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Delhi The learned Magistrate took the view that Raj Kumar Sharma was only one of the many waiters working in the snack-bar and was not the Manager. It was further held that the various papers which were signed by Raj Kumar Sharma at the time of the taking of the sample were not signed under coercion. The other findings given were that the Food Inspector did not try to call independent witnesses to be present at the time of the taking of the sample and that it was doubtful whether the milk sold was represented to be buffalo-milk. Against the order of acquittal, with special leave obtained under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the present appeal was filed on behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Committee.
3. We have very carefully gone through the evidence that was produced in the case and have also considered all the submissions that were made on behalf of the appellant and Raj Kumar Sharma, the respondent in the case. It seems to us that the learned trial Magistrate failed to consider objectively the evidence in the case with the result that the findings given by him are not sustainable.
4. At the hearing of the appeal it was not disputed that Food Inspector Kapoor had gone to the snack-bar at about 4 p.m on January 27, 1971, and that in the snack-bar about 10 kilograms of boiled milk had been kept in a utensil (Patila). It is also an admitted fact that on that occasion the respondent was present in the snack-bar. While according to Kapoor the respondent was “running and managing it”, the version of the respondent himself was that he was one of the many waiters present in the snack-bar.
5. It is also in the evidence of Kapoor that he tiled to secure the presence of some independent witnesses at the time of the taking of the sample. He stated that he contacted the customers in the snack-bar who were taking tea or coffee, then made a request to some persons who were purchasing tickets at the cinema counter and even tried to persuade some nearby shopkeepers and passers-by but no one agreed’ to he a witness to the lifting of the sample. He further mentioned that on the main road outside the cinema the happened to notice that S.C Bhalla, a Sanitary Inspector of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, was passing that way on a scooter and stopped him. On being requested Bhalla agreed to be present at the time of the taking of the sample. He, therefore, took the sample in the presence of the said Sanitary Inspector.
6. It is not the law, as was pointed out by a Bench of this Court in The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Nathu Ram, 1972 FAC 63 (Delhi), that a Food Inspector must somehow secure the presence of independent witnesses. If he makes honest efforts to call one or more persons to be present at the time of the taking of the sample it would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
7. There is nothing to show that in fact no serious efforts were made by Food Inspector Kapoor to secure the attendance of independent witnesses. The learned trial Magistrate was mot right in holding that the Food Inspector did not try to call independent witnesses to be present at the time of the taking of the sample.
8. On the notice given by Food Inspector. Kapoor to Raj Kumar Sharma for informing the latter that the sample was being taken for getting it analysed from the Public Analyst, Raj Kumar Sharma wrote with his own hands as under:—
“We use Buffalo Milk (Bailed) in the preparation of Tea and Coffee sold in the snackbar.
R. Sharma, Manager,
27-1-71,
Chanakyapuri Snack-Bar,
New Delhi.”
9. He also signed’ and thumb marked the receipt regarding payment of price to him. On the receipt as well he wrote that be had received “sealed sample bottle of Buffalo Milk (Boiled) and its price Re, 1/- only.”
10. The plea taken by Raj Kumar Sharma respondent was that Kapoor had induced and coerced him with the help of Bhalla to do whatever they wanted and had assured him that the proceedings were to be against the proprietor and the managing director of the snackbar and the writings to ‘be made by him were only to be used in evidence against the proprietor and the managing director. He, however, did not deny that the notice (Exhibit PA) and the receipt (Exhibit PB) were served on him and that the had written the writings thereon which were alleged to be in his handwriting.
11. In defence two employees of Chanakya Cinema were produced who deposed about Shri Shegal being the proprietor of the snack-bar and Shri M.L Kapoor to be the next man. They further stated that Raj Kumar Sharma was only a waiter in the snack-bar.
12. The plea that the respondent was only one of the many waiters working in the snack-bar and was nobody to sell milk to the Food Inspector was obviously an afterthought. Beyond doubt he was acting as the person in-charge of the snack-bar and, therefore, represented himself to be the Manager while signing the notice (Exhibit PA). There could be no question of his being coerced to write anything. A literate person like him could not be made to write that he was the Manager and had received the price and the sample bottle by merely being told that action would only be taken against the proprietor and the managing director. Admittedly there were many waiters working in the snackbar and there was no reason why he alone should have been tacked up by the Food Inspector for being made a scapegoat. Even according to Bhalla payment of bills was being received by Raj Kumar Sharma and not by the waiters.
13. In his judgment the learned trial Magistrate laid great stress on the point that efforts were not made to find out as to who was the licensee or the proprietor of the snack-bar. The remarks made to that effect ware hardly of any relevance. The sample of milk having been sold by the respondent so far as he is concerned, it could not make any difference as to who was the proprietor or the licensee of the snack-bar. His liability was as a vendor of an adulterated article of food.
14. It also seems to us that the prosecution was able to fully establish that the milk used in the snack-bar was indicated to be buffalo milk by Raj Kumar Sharma. Both Kapoor and Bhalla deposed to that effect Kapoor also mentioned that one of the walk of the snackbar had affixed to it a wooden plank and the words “buffalo's milk used here” were written on that wooden plank. Bhalla similarly stated that it was painted on a wooden fixture affixed on one of the walls of the snack-bar that buffalo milk was used. The statements of Kapoor and Bhalla were thus consistent regarding the indication that buffalo milk was used in the snack-bar. The learned Magistrate however, thought that the statements of these witnesses were discrepant as Kapoor had stated about the indication being painted on a wall of the snack-bar. It appears that there was some misunderstanding in appreciating the evidence by the learned trial Magistrate.
15. There being indication in the snack-bar that buffalo milk was used, the standard to be applied was as laid down for buffalo milk. According to that standard, as given in item A. 11.01.11 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, Buffalo milk raw pasteurised, boiled, flavoured or sterilised should have not less than 6 % of milk fat and not less than 9% of milk solids not fat. The sample taken had only 3.6% milk fat and 8.3% of milk solids not fat. It was, therefore, rightly reported to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, in his report (Exhibit PF).
16. It was not even the case of Raj Kumar Sharma that he bad told Kapoor that the milk was cow milk. In his statement, under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, what he had stated was that the “alleged buffalo milk was known to Food Inspector Mr. Kapoor because he was a frequent visitor of the said snack-bar”. Though the statement made was not very dear but obviously it did not mean that he had told Kapoor that the milk was cow milk. The acquittal of the respondent was altogether unjustified. We are also of the opinion that it is not a fit case where benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act should be given. Ordinarily persons indulging in sale of adulterated articles of food are not likely to mend their ways unless they are suitably punished.
17. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and by setting aside the order of Shri R.D Aggarwal dated December 9, 1971, Raj Kumar Sharma is convicted under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of the payment of fine, the respondent shall further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment. Unless the respondent surrenders within three days the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue non-bailable warrants so that the respondent is taken into custody and is made to serve, in accordance with law, the sentence that has been awarded to him.
18. Appeal allowed.
Alert