MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. M.K. Chawla. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500.00.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the petitioner has a licence for running a Dhaba at shop No. 24, Old Market, Timarpur, Delhi. On Jan. 23, 1973 at about 8.15 A.M. Food Inspector James accompanied by two more Food Inspectors came to this shop and found about 3 or 4 liters of cow's milk lying in a bucket in the shop. He bought 660 mili-litres of milk after paying its requisite price. Necessary documents Exhibits P.A. to P.C. were prepared at the spot. Thumb-marks and signatures of the petitioner were obtained. After adding the requisite amount of formalin the milk was duly sealed in three separate bottles. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report Exhibit P.F. found it to be deficient in milk solids not fat per cent which was equivalent to 28.9 percentage deficiency (%added water). The petitioner was thereafter prosecuted by the Delhi Municipal Corporation under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner was that he was running a Dhaba in the shop. A part of the shop was being used for residential purposes. His family consists of seven members. He had got the milk for the consumption of his family and not for sale. I find that the petitioner is entitled to acquittal on the simple ground that Food Inspector James did not comply with the Provisions of section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. James appeared as P.W. 1. He never deposed that he made any effort to join any witness of the Public. The only material fact deposed by him is that the petitioner runs a milk and tea shop. It is true that Food Inspector, G.M. Mittle (P.W. 3), and Food Inspector, J.P. is true that Food Inspector, G.M. Mittal (P.W. 3), and Food Inspector, J.P. Tyagi (P.W. 4), do state that James before taking the sample tried to associate public witnesses but nobody was prepared to come forward. This part of the statement has no value since what Food Inspector James did had to be primarily stated by James. The value of the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 is only corroborative. When James is silent on this aspect, matters cannot be improved by the statements of other witnesses who were trying to corroborate the main witness.