Food Adulteration – Conviction and Sentence – Petitioner, an employee of M/s M.K. Oil & Flour Mill, convicted for selling adulterated mustard oil – Case initiated after mustard oil sample collected by A.C.M.O.H. found adulterated with rice bran oil by Public Analyst – Trial Court sentenced petitioner to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine, in default further 6 months rigorous imprisonment – Appellate Court upheld conviction – High Court revises conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in testing reports and procedural lapses [Paras 1-16].

Conflicting Laboratory Reports – Discrepancies between Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory Reports – Initial Public Analyst Report found rice bran oil in mustard oil – Central Food Laboratory Report found no rice bran oil but indicated different Bellier Test Temperature – High Court observes significant contradictions creating doubt on prosecution’s case – Central Food Laboratory’s findings preferred as per statutory mandate under Section 13(3) of PFA Act [Paras 2-10, 12-13].

Procedural Compliance – Section 13 of PFA Act – Prosecution’s procedural lapses in sample collection and testing – Lack of public witnesses during sample collection – Violation of mandatory provisions of Section 10(9) of PFA Act – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – High Court emphasizes need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in food adulteration cases [Paras 5-13].

Application of Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – High Court notes failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. during trial – Affected fairness of trial – Importance of giving accused opportunity to explain incriminating evidence highlighted [Para 3b, 13].

Evidence Discrepancies – Reports’ Contradictions – Public Analyst Report indicated presence of rice bran oil and normal Bellier Test Temperature (25.5°C) – Central Food Laboratory Report showed absence of rice bran oil and higher Bellier Test Temperature (28.3°C) – High Court finds reports’ discrepancies critical in casting doubt on reliability of prosecution’s evidence [Paras 2-13].

Lack of Mens Rea – Petitioner as Employee – Petitioner neither manufacturer nor owner of oil mill – Lacked mens rea for adulteration – High Court notes petitioner acted under direction of employer – Benefit of doubt extended to petitioner as discrepancies in evidence and procedural lapses significant [Paras 3, 13].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 16(1)(A) read with Section 7(1) of PFA Act – Petitioner discharged from bail bonds forthwith – High Court mandates proper adherence to procedural safeguards in food adulteration cases [Paras 17-22].

Bail Petition – Regular Bail – Petitioner previously filed bail petitions both before Sessions Judge and the High Court – Contention for bail based on long custody, completion of investigation, and lack of possibility to influence witnesses – Court emphasizes previous criminal antecedents and substantial quantity of heroin found – Petitioner’s custody not considered a sufficient change in circumstance warranting bail [Paras 1-10].

Rejection of Subsequent Bail Application – Requirement of Substantial Change – Reference to Supreme Court decisions – Subsequent bail applications must show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the earlier decision – Daily custody not a significant change to warrant bail [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No substantial change in circumstances to warrant release on bail – Petitioner to remain in custody [Paras 9-10].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce alleging respondent’s disinterest in marriage, extra-marital relationship, and repeated desertion – Family Court dismissed petition citing lack of specific evidence and hearsay nature of allegations – Appellant’s claims of respondent’s cruelty and desertion found unsubstantiated – Appeal dismissed, upholding Family Court’s decision [Paras 1-32].

Specific Allegations and Evidence – Requirement of Specific Evidence – Appellant’s allegations of cruelty included respondent’s statements about disinterest in marriage, maintaining a relationship with another person, and threats of suicide – Claims based on hearsay, with no direct witness testimony or corroborative evidence – Appellant failed to produce crucial witnesses, including parents and panchayat members [Paras 4-15, 19-20].

Previous Petition – Res Judicata – Bar on Fresh Petition – Previous divorce petition filed by appellant dismissed for non-prosecution – Instant petition for same relief on same grounds deemed barred by law – Legal principle of res judicata applicable [Para 24].

Respondent’s Willingness to Reconcile – Evidence – Testimonies indicated respondent’s willingness to continue marital relationship – Appellant’s witnesses corroborated respondent’s willingness and appellant’s refusal to reconcile – Compromise agreement (Ext. R-1) signed by appellant admitted wrongful doubts about respondent’s character [Paras 18, 23, 28-29].

Compromise Agreement and Judicial Findings – Compromise agreement evidenced appellant’s apology and undertaking not to ill-treat respondent – Family Court noted appellant’s failure to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion – Findings from complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act and maintenance awarded to respondent also considered [Paras 21-23, 30].

Judgment of Family Court – Affirmation – Family Court’s findings regarding lack of specific allegations and hearsay evidence upheld – No direct or circumstantial evidence of alleged extra-marital relationship – Previous judicial findings and compromise agreement noted – Appeal found to lack merit and dismissed [Paras 13-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs – Pending applications also disposed of.

Pre-emption Rights – Tenancy and Co-sharer Claims – Plaintiffs sought to pre-empt a sale based on tenancy claims over the suit land – Defendants claimed superior rights as tenants in possession – Rival pre-emptors, Samey Singh and Partap, also filed suit claiming rights as co-sharers and tenants.

Tenancy Rights – Evidence and Presumptions – Trial court and first appellate court found that plaintiffs failed to prove tenancy rights – Defendants Samey Singh and Partap found to be in possession as tenants – Presumptions under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act discussed.

Co-sharer Rights – Superior Right to Pre-empt – Samey Singh and Partap established as co-sharers by virtue of a prior sale deed – Court upheld their superior right to pre-empt the sale under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 – Tenancy rights of plaintiffs not supported by evidence.

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot interfere with such findings unless specific exceptions are met – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on the scope of second appeals.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Lower courts' judgments affirmed. Plaintiffs' suit to pre-empt the sale dismissed. Rival pre-emptors Samey Singh and Partap's suit decreed, affirming their right to pre-empt based on co-sharer status.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Forged Educational Certificate – Petitioner challenged his dismissal based on alleged submission of a forged transfer certificate to alter date of birth – Acquitted by the criminal court on the same facts – Disciplinary Authority failed to provide evidence of forgery and did not address objections raised by petitioner – Appellate Authority’s decision upheld on assumptions without evidence – Writ Petition allowed, orders of dismissal set aside, and reinstatement with consequential benefits ordered [Paras 1-16].

Criminal and Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal Impact – Different standards of proof – Acquittal in criminal case impacts validity of departmental dismissal when based on same facts – Departmental proceedings lacked evidence and proper inquiry – Dismissal deemed arbitrary and non-speaking [Paras 8-13].

Procedure and Evidence – Non-speaking Orders – Importance of reasoned orders in disciplinary actions – Failure to summon witnesses and provide documents to petitioner – Disciplinary and appellate orders found to be lacking substantive justification and consideration of petitioner’s defense [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders of dismissal by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority quashed – Petitioner reinstated with all consequential benefits and retiral benefits to be extended within four months [Paras 14-15].

Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Appellant sought anticipatory bail after being accused of hurling caste-based abuses and physical assault – Co-accused granted pre-arrest bail by co-ordinate bench – Appellant contended lack of public view during alleged insult and delay in witness statements.

Intent and Public View – Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act – Requirements for intention to insult and incident occurring in public view not met – Incident occurred at 1 AM, limiting public presence – Witness statement recorded after a month considered afterthought – Prima facie case under SC/ST Act not established.

Court Decision – Pre-Arrest Bail Granted – Appellant's interim bail made absolute subject to cooperation with investigation and adherence to conditions – Relying on precedents where anticipatory bail can be granted if allegations are false or prima facie case not made out.

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Interim bail granted on 05.12.2023 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and additional conditions including cooperation with investigation and non-repetition of similar offenses.

Will – Validity and Proof – Attesting Witness – Appellant claimed entitlement to compensation based on a will dated January 10, 1985, executed by her husband Balwant Singh. The will was challenged by the respondents, Balwant Singh’s sons from his first marriage, on grounds of suspicious circumstances and alleged forgery. The Court held that the will was valid and properly executed, complying with Section 63© of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and attested as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No substantial evidence supported the respondents’ claims of forgery or undue influence [Paras 5.1-5.9, 6.1-6.12].

Witness Credibility – Interested Witness – Reference Court doubted the credibility of attesting witness Ram Sarup, citing his close relationship with the appellant. However, the High Court found that mere acquaintance or relationship does not automatically disqualify a witness if their testimony is otherwise credible and substantiated by evidence [Para 5.1].

Execution of Will – Multiple Signatures – Reference Court raised suspicion over the will bearing two signatures of the testator, Balwant Singh. The High Court clarified that signing multiple times on a single-page document is not unusual and does not invalidate the will, especially when the signatures are consistent and no evidence of tampering was provided [Para 5.2].

Burden of Proof – The burden of proving the will’s invalidity rested on the respondents. The High Court emphasized that mere allegations without substantive evidence cannot suffice to nullify a duly executed and attested will. Respondents failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims of forgery or undue influence [Para 6.5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Reference Court set aside – Shanta Kumari declared exclusively entitled to the compensation amount along with interest – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 7.1-7.4].

Public Health – Food Adulteration – Suo motu action to address food adulteration impacting public health – Interim directions issued for implementation of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – Monitoring and sampling of high-risk areas – Establishment of testing infrastructure – Public awareness campaigns to educate about food adulteration and its health impacts [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to life includes safe and healthy food – Article 47 imposes duty on the State to ensure public health – Food adulteration affects fundamental right to health – Directions issued to both Central and State Governments for effective implementation of food safety laws [Paras 7-8].

Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – Implementation – Act of 2006 aims to regulate food safety – Identifies the need for better enforcement and infrastructure – Gaps in the Act's implementation highlighted, particularly in unorganized sectors – Interim directions to improve enforcement and public awareness [Paras 8-12].

Public Awareness – Campaigns and Education – State and Central Governments directed to conduct public awareness campaigns about food adulteration – Utilization of various media to educate public – Inclusion of food safety education in school workshops [Paras 13-15].

Interim Measures – Immediate steps ordered to enhance food safety – State Food Safety Authority to conduct regular sampling – Establishment of a dedicated website for public complaints and information – Central and State Governments to report monthly compliance to Court [Para 15].

Decision: Interim directions issued for effective implementation of food safety measures and public awareness campaigns. Compliance reports to be submitted monthly. Further directions to be considered in future hearings.

Workmen’s Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Insurance Liability – Deceased driver crushed between two lorries – Insurance company’s contention that deceased had a fake driving licence and thus no liability – Court held that the insurance company cannot question employer-employee relationship based on the driving licence’s validity in this context – Liability of insurer not absolved despite fake licence of driver responsible for accident – Appeal dismissed – Compensation affirmed [Paras 1-12].

Driving Licence Validity – Employer’s Duty – No evidence of employer’s knowledge of fake licence – Court reiterates that the owner cannot be expected to verify the licence’s genuineness beyond its face value – Insurance liability persists even if driving licence is fake without owner’s knowledge [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Commissioner’s order upheld – No costs ordered – Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed [Para 12].