VISHNU KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and when this case came up for Admission on 2nd May 1967, I admitted the case only on the ground of alleged non-compliance with section 10 (7) of the said Act.

(2.) When the case was taken up in the forenoon, the counsel for the petitioner was not present, and Mr. Safeer, appearing for the State, very fairly assisted me to go through the record and decide the case. Section 10 (7) of the Act prior to its amendment in 1964, provided that the Food Inspector when taking any action under clause, (a) of. sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action in taken. In view. of the use of the words as far as possible'., there was a difference of opinion as to the provisions of the section being mandatory or directory. However now the section has been amended by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act No 49 of 1964, and the amended section reads as follows :-

(3.) In this particular case there has been no independent witness examined on behalf, of the prosecution to the effect that such witness was present at the time when the simple was taken One Harbhajan Singh was examined as a defence witness and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed with reference to his evidence as follows -