KHUSI RAM RATHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Khusi Ram Rathore and Balak Ram Rathore have preferred this revision against the judg ment and order dated 18-3-1986 of Sri Khem Singh, Special Judge (Dacoity Af fected Area)/additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1985 against the judgment and order dated 29-6- 1985 of Sri VK. Mahesh-wari, Munsif Magistrate, convicting and sentencing the applicants under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adul teration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and sentenced them to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 each and in default of payment of fine the applicants have been sentenced to further three months' R. I.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 20-6-1984 at about 5 p. m. Sri M. P. Tiwari, Head Food Inspector in the presence of Sri N. L. Verma, and Sri Om Prakash visited the shop of the applicants in Kasba Nawabganj in the district of Farrukhabad. THE applicants were present at the shop. THEre were some packets of compat (sugar toffee) in a pouch of polythene at the shop. THE Head Food Inspector asked the ap plicants to give three packets of compat to him as sample. THE applicant Khusi Ram gave three packets. However, when the Head Food Inspector asked them to dis close the name of the manufacturer and the name of the whole seller there came a refusal and suddenly the packets were snatched. THE Head Food Inspector was pushed out of the shop and applicant Balak Ram locked the shop.

(3.) IT is conspicuous to note that the own case of the prosecution is that the applicants did give the sample. At the same time it is also clear that no notices were given to the applicants under Section 11 (1) of the Act. In the absence of the notice and any other writing on the spot I am left with the solitary uncorroborated evidence of Sri M. P. Tiwari, Head Food Inspector. The two witnesses who are present on the spot namely L. N. Verma and Om Prakash have been withheld from the witness box. In a case where there is not even a shred of documentary evidence regarding happen ing of the date it is not safe to rely on the ipsedixit of the Head Food Inspectorwho is obviously interested in seeing that the case results in conviction. In the totality of the circumstances it is not possible for me to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sri M. P. Tiwari and hold both the ap plicants, who are real brothers guilty. The case against the applicants is not free from reasonable doubt.