LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the revisionist Lal Singh against the judgment and order dated 27-9-1985 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1985 against the judgment and order dated 4-6-85 passed by 11 Addl. Munsif-Magistrate Special Judicial Magistrate Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 211 of 1984 convicting him under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.F.A. Act") and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted under S. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of rigorous imprisonment were to run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. A sample of cow's milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the revisionist on 25-4-1984 at 8-30 a.m. which he was selling without licence. The same was found to be adulterated as per the report of Public Analyst dated 1-6-1984. The accused-revisionist sent the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. As per the report of Central Food Laboratory dated 2-2-1985 also, the sample was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of milk fat and non-fatty solids. At the trial, the Prosecution examined the Food Inspector A. K. Gupta P.W. 1 besides relying on documentary evidence. The accused-revisionist also examined two witnesses in defence. As the trial Court found the case to be proved, it passed the judgment of conviction and sentences against the accused-revisionist which he challenged before the Appellate Court without success.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist has argued that the compliance of S. 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act was not made inasmuch as no independent public witness had been examined. It is found that it was clearly mentioned by the Food Inspector in the receipt Ex. Ka 2 that no public person was prepared to stand as a witness. So, the absence of public witnesses was very well explained. Moreover, the accused-revisionist could not show any enmity with the Food Inspector who took the sample which could tempt him to concoct a false case against him. The absence of public witnesses havingbeen plausibly explained, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution case.