SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts, giving rise to this revision, are that accused revisionist Satish Kumar was tried by Special Magistrate, Economic Offences/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 910/99, Food Inspector v. Satish Kumar, for the offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate, after conclusion of the trial, vide the judgment and order dated 5.2.2001, convicted the accused revisionist for the said offence, and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of rupees one thousand. In default of payment of fine, the accused revisionist was further directed to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. The accused revisionist challenged his conviction and sentence, as imposed by the learned Magistrate, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 11/2001 before the Court of Sessions. The said appeal of the accused revisionist was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.- III, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 24.3.2003, whereby the conviction of the accused revisionist was upheld, while the sentence was modified from one year's rigorous imprisonment to six months' rigorous imprisonment, without disturbing the sentence of fine and punishment in default thereof. Still feeling disgruntled, the accused has filed the instant Revision before this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist has very strenuously and vociferously argued this revision. He pointed out some minor discrepancies in the evidence adduced before the trial court, which can be noticed only on its scrupulous examination. One of the main contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that Food Inspector Mr. Sheo Raj Singh Yadav, while taking the sample of the adulterated milk from the dairy of the accused located at 73 Race Course, Dehradun, failed to take the signature of a witness Ajay Jaggi on Form VI, and the only remaining witness, Head Constable Hari Prakash, posted at nearby police station Dehradun, who had signed on the said Form VI, could not be examined by the prosecution before the trial court. Prosecution examined only Mr. Ajay Jaggi, who was employed in Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and had signed on the receipt manifesting the payment of quantity of milk taken for sample. So, on account of non-examination of Head Constable Hari Prakash, a witness shown in Form VI, the conviction of the accused revisionist is illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

(3.) In support of his argument, learned Counsel relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2007, Chief Food Inspector, Local Health Authority, Nainital v. Shri Jagtar Singh,2008 NCC 453, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the provisions contained under Section 10(7) of the Act are mandatory in nature for the purpose of compliance thereof. It is mandatory for the Food Inspector to get witnessed the action of taking of the sample, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, by one or more persons and take his or their signature on Form VI. The Court further held that if none of the witnesses, who witnessed taking of the sample, is examined by the prosecution, then it creates doubt as to the truthfulness of the prosecution story and benefit of doubt must be given by the trial court to the accused.