Welcome to PesPro


26 October 2016


This blog strives to enrich the knowledge of various stakeholders in food safety chain from Farm to Fork

தினம் ஒரு குறள்

இந்த அதிகாரத்தில் உள்ள 10 குறள்களையும் இனிய பாடலாய் அதன் பொருளுடன் கேட்கலாம்

 125. நெஞ்சொடு கிளத்தல்

 குறள் 1242:
காத லவரிலர் ஆகநீ நோவது
பேதமை வாழியென் நெஞ்சு
மு.வ உரை:
என் நெஞ்சே! வாழ்க! அவர் நம்மிடம் காதல் இல்லாதவராக இருக்க, நீ மட்டும் அவரை நினைந்து வருந்துவது உன் அறியாமையே!
சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை:
என் நெஞ்சே நீ வாழ்ந்து போ; அவர் நம்மீது அன்பு இல்லாதவராக இருக்க, நீ மட்டும் அவர் வரவை எண்ணி வருந்துவது மூடத்தனமே.
கலைஞர் உரை:
அவர் நமது காதலை மதித்து நம்மிடம் வராத போது, நெஞ்சே! நீ மட்டும் அவரை நினைத்து வருந்துவது அறியாமையாகும்; நீ வாழ்க

Since he loves not, thy smart
Is folly, fare thee well my heart
English Explanation:
Is folly, fare thee well my heart!
Kaadhal Avarilar Aakanee Novadhu
Pedhaimai Vaazhiyen Nenju

From plate to plough : A clear trend towards Non Vegetarianism in India

In the eyes of the world, India is seen as a vegetarian country. Presumably, this impression has been created by our best brand ambassadors from political, spiritual and yoga circles. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a strict vegetarian. The popular yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, and many other Hindu religious leaders too, are vegetarians and preach vegetarianism.

But what is the reality? To know this, we dig into India’s largest household consumption surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). They were conducted in 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12, each time with a sample size of over one lakh households, with a one-month recall period. We define non-vegetarians as those consuming either eggs or fish or meat or any combination of these. By this definition, 62.3 per cent of Indian households consumed non-vegetarian food in 2011-12, up from 56.7 per cent in 1993-94, and 58.2 per cent in 2004-05. So the trend is quite clear — non-vegetarianism is on the rise. The Sample Registration System Baseline Survey 2014, however, states that 71 per cent of Indians were non-vegetarians as on January 1, 2014. But this study covers only that segment of the population which is above 15 years of age; the NSSO survey includes individuals of all age groups. Hence the two are not comparable.

Which state has the most vegetarians? If you are thinking of Gujarat, the home of Gandhi and Narendra Modi, think again. While 28 per cent of Gujarat’s population eats non-vegetarian food, Punjab has an even lower percentage (23 per cent) of non-vegetarians. Haryana, however, has the lowest non-vegetarian population in the country with just 19 per cent non-vegetarian households, and has remained so since 1993-94 (see map).

vegetarians in india, non vegetarians in india, non veg india, indian non vegs, non veg percent india, veg percent india, indian diet, indian palate, indian vegetarians, indian non vegetarian, indian non vegetarian food, indian vegetarian food

A state-wide analysis shows that seven states in the Northeast had the highest proportion (97 per cent) of non-vegetarians in 2011-12, followed by West Bengal (95 per cent) and Kerala (92 per cent). At the other end, Haryana is followed by Rajasthan (20 per cent), Punjab (23 per cent) and Gujarat (28 per cent). There has been a sharp increase in the proportion of non-vegetarians in Jammu and Kashmir — from 35 per cent in 1993-94 to 71 per cent in 2004-05.

The percentage of non-vegetarians in the state increased to 74 per cent in 2011-12. The sharp increase is, presumably, due to the exodus of Hindus from the state during this period.

While the trend toward non-vegetarianism is clear, what is interesting to note is that it has been marked by a “chicken revolution”. The proportion of households consuming chicken shot up from eight per cent in 1993-94 to 38 per cent in 2011-12, while that of the fish-eating households increased marginally from 30 per cent to 32 per cent over the same period. The proportion of goat-meat/mutton-eaters has fallen significantly — from 30 per cent in 1993-94 to 15 per cent in 2011-12. The population of beef and buffalo meat-eaters has remained more or less constant at about six per cent over this period. Interestingly, the proportion of so-called “eggetarians” (those consuming only eggs) has fallen drastically from about 24 per cent in 1993-94 to merely 3.5 per cent in 2011-12.

A structural change in the poultry industry by organised large hatcheries like Venkateshwara and Suguna — who have mainstreamed small holders — seems to have ushered in the “chicken revolution”. As a result, broiler meat production rose from less than 0.2 million metric tonnes (mmt) in 1991 to about 2.47 mmt in 2011-12, and egg production from about 24 billion to 66 billion by 2011-12.

Normally, rising non-vegetarianism is attributed to increasing incomes and resulting diversification of diets for better and higher protein intake. However, the Indian story may not be that simple. Religious beliefs have played an important role in keeping meat consumption low in some states. For example, Kerala and Punjab are both prosperous states with comparable per capita incomes, but Kerala has 92 per cent non-vegetarians and Punjab only 23 per cent. Across states, correlation between per-capita incomes and non-vegetarianism does not
yield positive results.

Religious movements in Punjab — Arya Samaj, Radhasoami and Namdharis — seem to have played an influential role in restricting meat consumption in the state. It is likely that vegetarians consume more milk to meet their protein requirements. The proportion of milk-consuming households increased from 70 per cent in 1993-94 to 81 per cent in 2011-12. India is the largest producer of milk (146 mmt in 2014-15), although per capita availability (322 g/day) still remains low. Internationally too, among countries with comparable or even lower per capita incomes, India has the lowest level of per capita meat consumption — 2.9 kg in 2015, of which 1.7kg/ capita is poultry meat (see graph: Total annual per capita meat consumption). Pakistan’s annual per capita meat consumption is about four times that of India; the country has a lower per capita income than India.

What do these numbers indicate for food and nutritional security? Indians draw only about one per cent calorie-intake and three per cent protein-intake from eggs, fish and meat. Given the high incidence of malnutrition in India, especially among children, this is somewhat worrisome for nutritionists. Will government policy promote egg or meat consumption for better nutrition? The chances are dim. But the government can give a fillip to poultry consumption by reducing import duty on chicken legs from 100 per cent to say 20 per cent. Meat consumption will increase primarily through private sector initiatives such as of KFC and McDonald’s, which can ensure food safety requirements are met. Modernised, well-equipped abattoirs will also help as they have in making India one of the largest exporters of buffalo meat. Milk and milk-products can be promoted by cooperatives with support from the government.

Further, since chicken rules the roost, not pork or beef, the feed pressure will be much less in India, as chicken is a comparatively more efficient convertor of energy with feed-to-meat ratio of 1.6:1 compared to 5:1 for pork and 7:1 for beef. This, coupled with low levels of meat consumption, will keep demand for feed food subdued. While the trend towards non-vegetarianism is increasing, vegetarians are certainly more benign to the planet’s environmental health.

Gulati is Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture and Verma is a consultant at ICRIER. This column first appeared in the print edition under the title ‘Not chicken anymore’.

Akshaya Patra foundation starts second FSQL lab in Lucknow

Akshaya Patra Foundation has started its second Food Safety and Quality Control Lab (FSQC Lab) in the state capital. The state-of-art mini lab, at the Amausi industrial area, is equipped with the modern technology and high-precision testing instruments for evaluating the food products right from the farm to the plate. The FSQC Lab was inaugurated yesterday by Alok Dhawan, Director, CSIR, Lucknow and Dr Mukul Das, Chief Scientist and Area Coordinator, IITR (CSIR). The food testing laboratory services will help minimise potential hazards, protect consumer’s health from unwanted food safety scares, and improve health and wellness by maintaining nutritional levels as per Mid Day meal (MDM) guidelines. The food testing services cover multiple chemical, microbiological, physical, and sensory examinations (more than 60 parameters) to analyse and ensure the safety and quality of raw materials and finished products. The mini lab is involved at every stage from the food supply chain to state-of- the art facilities to ensure compliance with international regulations governing issues such as chemical residues, pathogenic bacteria, allergens, additives, and nutritional content. Mr Shridhar Venkat, CEO of The Akshaya Patra Foundation thanked the support extended by Tata Trust in setting up the second lab in Lucknow. He remarked that these initiatives will further strengthen the food safety and quality control practices and help them in serving healthy and nutritious food for children. The Akshaya Patra Foundation’s Lucknow Laboratory will cover 20 kitchens pan India and conduct more than 50 analyses per day. The first Food Safety and Quality Control Lab opened last year in Ahmedabad has completed 5,000 plus analysis of various raw materials and finished products. The Akshaya Patra Foundation is a not-for- profit organisation headquartered in Bengaluru and it supply Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) in Government schools and Government-aided schools in the country. Akshaya Patra Foundation is the world’s largest (not-for- profit run) mid-day meal programme serving wholesome food to over 1.6 million children in 26 locations across 11 states in the country.

Halwai Association asks sweet sellers to follow FSSAI norms

Halwai Association asks sweet sellers to follow norms of FSSAIExcelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 24: In an advisory issued here today, Halwai Association, Jammu, has asked the sweet sellers of Jammu region to follow norms of Food Safety & Standards Act 2006 of India (FSSAI) strictly.
The advisory was issued by the association during a press conference addressed here today by president, Nek Ram and general secretary, SS Arora.
While speaking on the occasion, Nek Ram said advised all the sweet sellers to keep their business places/workshops neat and clean, use quality raw material for preparation of eatables/sweets, ensure dust free items, avoid colours and if required use permissible food colour in small quantity.
SS Arora said that all the sweets sellers should stick to the rates fixed by the association/CAPD Jammu and display their eatables in the counters/refrigerators. He further advised them not to use chemicals, which are harmful and prohibited under FSSAI and always give contents to the satisfaction of the customers.
The association assured the citizens of Jammu to provide them best quality of sweets and other eatables on genuine rates on the occasion of Diwali.
Earlier, the association members also expressed the labour problem being faced by the sweets sellers. They said that due to lack of local labour they have to depend for manpower on states like Bihar, UP and Jharkhand, resulting into cost of production but still they are managing to provide the sweets to the Jammuites on low prices as compared to the neighbouring states.

Oil holds key to food hygiene

As part of its 10th anniversary, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has joined hands with the Goa food and drug administration to make it the first state in India to adopt five of the ten food safety initiatives launched by it. It is understood that the state will be working on providing food safety standards in homes, schools and workplaces which also includes removing junk food from schools and replacing them with healthy food. It is pertinent to note that besides schools, homes and workplaces another important place where the authorities need to constantly monitor are the fast-food joints, eateries and other places where food is sold. Besides laying stress on the aspect of hygiene in places where food is sold, what also needs to be kept in mind is the quality of the ingredients that are used to prepare the food with particular stress on the oil used in the cooking. Oil forms an important part of any cooking and could also be the most neglected ingredient as far as its quality is concerned. It is a fact that using the same cooking oil for several times can make the food unfit for human consumption. Storing cooking oil for long period of time can also turn it rancid. Consuming unhealthy oil can lead to a number of health problems including hardening of arteries, deposition of fat in the arteries and veins which can precipitate a heart attack. Hence it is very essential to keep a check on the quality of oil that is being used in eateries, fast-food joints and other food stalls. The general public also needs to be made aware of the need to use good quality oil in their cooking.

FSSAI to notify standards on supplements

Food regulator FSSAI will soon notify a new standards for food supplements as part of its efforts to ensure safe and nutritious food to the people. 

Last year, the Food Safety and Standards Authority ofIndia (FSSAI) had come out with draft quality and safety norms to regulate food or health supplements, nutraceuticals, functional and dietary foods.
“The new standards of food supplements are in the final stage of notification and will be shortly notified post government approval,” FSSAI CEO Pawan KumarAgarwal said at a conference of the Indian Direct Selling Association (IDSA). 
Stating that about 60 per cent of the direct selling industry players deal in food products, he asked the members to create awareness about the food safety. 
“It is FSSAI’s responsibility to ensure that safe and nutritious food is supplied to 130 crore people of the country and we do require support and cooperation of each member of this Industry,” Agarwal said. 
“We have been having discussions with IDSA to effectively use the reach of 40 lakh distributors of IDSA member companies towards spreading food awareness, which is an elementary requirement,” he added. 
IDSA Chairman Jitendra Jagota said: “The Direct Selling Industry has huge potential to reach Rs 15,000 crore by 2019-20. We are aiming at providing business opportunities to about 90 lakh people by 2019-20. While women remain the stronghold of the industry, our focus would also be to provide business opportunities to more men in the country.

Food Safety News – Tamilnadu updates -Oct 25

PFA- New Delhi District Court – Substandard Paneer case – Narendra Singh Yadav Vs State , Oct 19th



CA No. 8416/16

Narender Singh Raghav S/o Sh. Dilip Singh Raghav M/s Hari Om Paneer Bhandar Shop No. 74, Ghanta Ghar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007 R/o 5284, IInd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007. ….Appellant


Food Inspector Department of PFA Govt. Of NCT of Delhi A-20 Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi- 110035. ….

Respondent Date of receiving of Appeal : 30.05.2016 Date of arguments : 19.10.2016 Date of judgment : 19.10.2016


1 By this judgment I will dispose of appeal u/sec.374 Cr.PC. filed on behalf of Narender Singh Raghav against the judgment dated 13.03.2014 and order on sentence dated 24.03.2014 passed by Sh. Gaurav Rao, the then Ld. ACMM-II,             

2 The brief facts of the case as per record and from trial court record are that accused is running an establishment namely M/s Hari Om Paneer Bhandar, at Shop No. 74, Ghanta Ghar, Sabji Mandi, Delhi-110007. On 15.01.2011 at about 04.40 p.m. Food Inspector Sh. A.K. Singh visited the said place and purchased 750 grams of “Paneer” (ready for sale) from accused. FI was accompanied with SDM/LHA Sh. R. K. Sharma. The said Paneer was purchased for the purposes of analysis under PFA Act. The same sample was divided into three parts, packed as per Rules of PFA. Panchanama was prepared. One sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst. As per the report of Analyst, sample did not confirm to the standard because “The sample does not conform to standard because milk fat of dried matter is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 50% (48.95%).

3 As the sample was failed, prosecution was launched by Food Inspector by filing complaint dated 24.03.2011 with the court. Accused was summoned. He has exercised his right u/sec.13(2) PFA Act and get the sample analyzed by CFL. The CFL gave opinion “I am of the opinion that, the above sample does not conform to the standards of “Paneer or Chhena” as per PFA Rules 1955 as per tests performed (Milk fat on dry weight basis is 46.22 %)”.

 4 Charge was framed against accused u/sec.2(ia) (a)

(m) read with sec.7 of PFA Act, 1954 punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act.

5 After trial, vide judgment dated 13.03.2014 accused was convicted for offence u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act and vide order on sentence dated 24.03.2014 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 18 months and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine SI of 60 days.

6 In this appeal, the accused has assailed the judgment on the following grounds:-

(i) Non-compliance of Sec.10(7) of PFA Act and Rule i.e. independent witnesses were not joined.

(ii) Non-compliance of Rule 14 of PFA Rules i.e. the spoon, mug, bottles were not made clean and dried at the spot by the food inspector or any other official.

(iii) Variation in PA and CFL report which goes in benefit of accused.

(iv) After coming into Food Safety & Standards Act, the punishment is to be granted under the said Act (argued orally).

7 No reply was filed by respondent/state and the matter was argued orally.

8 I have gone through the record, Trial Court record and have heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for appellant and Ld. SPP for State.

9 It is argued by counsel for appellant that no public witness was present in the proceedings nor efforts were made to join any public witnesses. As far as this argument is concerned, the same argument was raised before the Ld. Trial Court. The same was dealt by the trial court from para 22 to 27 of the judgment. As far as opinion/finding of the trial court regarding this argument is concerned, I do not find any infirmity in those findings and the same are upheld and the arguments regarding this fact does not find any force and thus rejected.

10 It is further argued that compliance u/sec.14 PFA Rules was not proved on record by the prosecution. It is stated that witnesses are deposing differently with respect to the cleanliness of knife, metal parat, mug etc. It is further stated that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove these facts. These arguments were also addressed before the trial court. The relevant part of the judgment dealing with these arguments are from para 28 to 44 of the judgment. I have gone through the record and submissions forwarded. As far as these witnesses are concerned, they have specifically stated that as to how the Paneer was taken from the open dry parat. The witnesses had deposed that the same was taken from open dry parat, with the help of clean and dry knife after thoroughly mixing it and then put in clean and dry bottles. So, there is no material on record which shows that the “implements” were unclean. There is no discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses regarding these facts. So, I do not find force in the arguments of Ld. counsel for appellant that there is non-compliance of Rule 14 PFA Rules, 1955. Hence, those arguments are rejected and the opinion given by trial court in this regard is upheld.

11 It is further stated that there is variation in the PA report and CFL report which is more than 0.3% in the results. It is stated that due to this reason, the sample was not homogenized. It is further stated that due to this reason sampling was not done properly and benefit goes in favor of accused. These arguments were also addressed before the trial court and were dealt by the trial court from para 51 to 85 of the judgment. As far as these arguments are concerned, the finding given in this regard by the trial court is quite explanatory and correct and does not require any interference.

So, in these circumstances, I do not find any ground for change/modification of Trial Court’s judgment, on merits. So, the finding of the trial court with respect to the conviction of accused u/sec.2(ia) (a) & (m) of PFA Act 1954 read with Sec.16(1a) of PFA Act, is upheld.

12 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant that on the date of judgment/order on sentence, the PFA Act, 1954 was repealed. It is further stated that the court should have passed the order on sentence as per the quantum/punishment mentioned in Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called FSSA). For this purpose, Ld. counsel for appellant had relied on Judgment i.e. Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (Crl. Appeals No. 214 and 215 of 2016, vide order dated 10.03.2016, as corrected vide order dated 17.03.2016, as reported in 2016 (1) FAC 203) of Hon. Supreme Court and earlier judgment T Barai Vs. Henry, 1983 (1) SCC 177.

13 On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. SPP for State that the sentencing cannot be done in new Act since the definition of many offences are changed in the new Act including this particular offence of which accused is charged. Definition of major offences like “adulteration” and “misbranding” have been changed. Now FSSA have definition “substandard food”, “food containing extraneous matter”, “unsafe food” and “misbranded food”. Due to this reason, the ingredients have changed and thus there is no way in which the old offences could be related to new offences.

14 As far as the objection of Ld. SPP for State is concerned, in the present case, the offence was that the article/food i.e. Paneer was found having slight deviations from standards i.e. milk fat on dry weight basis was found 46.22% (not less than 50%). This was termed as adulteration in view of Sec.2(ia) of PFA Act and thus consequently punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act. The charge was framed with these facts. There was no charge in which it is stated that the said deviation was injurious to health. Had it been the case, the charge should have been u/sec.16(1A) (ii) of PFA Act.

15 Now in the FSSA, such adulteration is termed as “substandard” in terms of Sec.3(zx) of FSSA Act punishable u/sec.51 of FSSA.

So, if we go through both these provisions of law, a particular offence with a particular fact is mentioned with some other name but with same ingredients in the new FSSA Act.

16 Hence, it is held that it is the ingredients which constitute an offence, determines that whether it is the same offence but with new name or an altogether different offence. Here the offence I.e Paneer having deviations from standards i.e. milk fat on dry weight basis was found 46.22% (not less than 50%) which was punishable u/sec.16(1a) PFA Act is similar to the offence u/sec.51 of FSSA Act.

17 As far as the application of Nemi Chand judgment (supra) is concerned, the same is based on the old judgment i.e. T.Barai (supra) of Hon. Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the T. Barai judgment is as follows:-

(Para 25) – It is settled both on authority and principle that when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment, or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. In Michell v. Brown [(1958) 120 ER 909, 912: 32 LTOS 146 : 7 WR 80] Lord Campbell put the matter thus:

“It is well settled rule of construction that, if a later statute again describes an offence created by a former statute and affixes a different punishment, varying the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by the later statute; see also Smith v. Benabo [(1937) 1 All ER 523: (1937) 1 KB 518: 156 LT 194] .

In Regina v. Youle [(1861) 158 ER 311, 315-16: 4 LT 299: 9 WR 637] , Martin, B. said in the oft-quoted passage:

“If a statute deals with a particular class of offences, and a subsequent Act is passed which deals with precisely the same offences, and a different punishment is imposed by the later Act, I think that, in effect, the legislature has declared that the new Act shall be substituted for the earlier Act.”

The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Article 20(1) against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has also no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different.

Moreover this particular aspect is stated as a illustration in the same judgment in para 23 which is as follows:-

To illustrate, if Parliament were to reenact Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provide that the punishment for an offence of murder shall be sentence for imprisonment for life instead of the present sentence of death or imprisonment for life, then it cannot be that the courts would still award a sentence of death even in pending cases.

So, in these circumstances, it can be safely said that while considering on the point of sentence, the quantum of sentence in new Act i.e. FSSA is to be considered.

18 Now according to my aforesaid reasoning the offence i.e. Paneer having deviations from standards i.e. milk fat on dry weight basis was found 46.22% (not less than 50%), earlier punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act is to be considered as an offence u/sec.51 of FSSA Act for the purposes of awarding punishment. The maximum punishment u/sec.51 FSSA Act is penalty which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs.

19 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant that appellant is a small time shopkeeper. He has suffered the long pendency of trial and a respectable person of society and has family. So, lenient view be taken.

20 Opposed by Ld. SPP for State on the ground that the long duration of trial cannot be a ground for leniency.

21 I have gone through the rival contentions on this aspect.

22 After going through the entire arguments in this regard, it is directed that accused/appellant Narender Singh Raghav is directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

23 Fine be deposited within 7 working days.

24 Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

25 Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. already furnished.

26 TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

27         Copy of order be given dasti.

28         File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED In the open Court                         (RAKESH PANDIT)
today i.e. 19.10.2016                          ASJ-01/New Delhi District
                                            Patiala House Courts/New Delhi

                            Narender Singh Raghav Vs.  State           
                             CA No. 8416/16
                            Narender Singh Raghav Vs. State


Present:     Sh. R. D. Goel counsel with appellant.
             Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

             Arguments on appeal heard.

             Put up for order today itself.

                                                  (Rakesh Pandit)
                                            ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District
At 3.00 p.m.
Present:     Sh. R. D. Goel counsel with appellant.
             Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

Vide separate judgment the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off. Accused/appellant Narender Singh Raghav is directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

Fine be deposited within 7 working days.

Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

Compliance report be sent by trial court to this court.

Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. already furnished.

TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

Copy of order be given dasti.

File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.

(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 19.10.2016