ISRAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the two courts below. Initially the revisionist Israr Ahamad was found guilty by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee and vide his judgment and order dated 13.8.1999, he was convicted and sentenced to six months" rigorous imprisonment in addition to rupees one thousand fine. THIS sentence was passed for the offence of Section 16(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He was also convicted for the violation of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, the Rules) and was imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- for the same, in default of payment of this fine of Rs. 200/-, it was directed that the accused will undergo one month"s rigorous imprisonment in addition.

(2.) THE accused challenged the said order of the Magistrate through appeal no. 42/99, but that appeal failed. So this revision.

(3.) IN this revision, the learned Counsel in defence has argued that the prosecution has not complied with the requirement of Section 10(7) of the Act because at the time of taking the sample of any article of food from the shop of the accused, it was mandatory for the Food INspector to call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action was taken and take his or their signatures. Here this Court while perusing the testimony of the witnesses (Food INspectors) has noticed that the Food INspectors gave a call to nearby persons and requested them to be the witnesses of the sampling. None of them was prepared to be a witness in the matter. Even none was ready to disclose one"s name and address. The above provision relied by the learned Counsel envisages that """.he shall call one or more persons to be present""". Obviously, the call was made by the Food INspector to the persons who were purchasing the food article from the shop, but none was ready. The Act has confined the requirement to the raising of the call by the Food INspector and not, that by all means, the Food INspector is bound to make the surrounding persons as witnesses of the occurrence because when nobody is ready to answer the call of the Food INspector and even they do not disclose their name and address, then Food INspector cannot force them to be a witness.