SHANKER DAYAL ALIAS BHOLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant described as Shanker Dayal alias Bhola son of Ghurhoo alias Barsati has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further R.I. for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 23-7-1977 at about 1. P. M. a sample of buffalo milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated as it contained only 3.5% fatty solids and 4% non-fatty contents. The applicant's case was that no sample was taken from him and the sample of somebody else had been foisted on him. He also denied his alleged thumb impressions on the papers prepared by the Food Inspector. He also appears to have alleged though not' in so many words that his name was Bhola and not Shanker Dayal alias Bhola Another plea on his behalf was that the prosecution had been launched too late on 23-8-1978 more than a year after the taking of the sample. He also got his sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and the Director per his report dated 21-9-1979 reported that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis and that it contained 2% milk fat and 5.8% nonfatty solids. Both the courts below have believed the prosecution version and convicted the applicant.

(3.) A number of points were urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, but it is not necessary to refer to them because in my opinion the revision should succeed on the question of identity of the person from whom the sample was taken. The applicant has been throughout describing himself as Bhola. He signed on the Vakalatnama and the statement on oath as Bhola yet he has throughout been described as Shanker Dayal alias Bhola son of Ghurhoo alias Barsati. The Food Inspector nothwithstanding the applicant's clear denial and challenge of the papers prepared by him did not utter a word to explains how these aliases crept into the applicant's and his father's name. This would not have assumed importance if everything was done in a state forward manner. But this is not so. In Form 6 it is noticeable that the name in the body is merely Bhola but at the top it is addressed to Shanker Dayal alias Bhola son of Ghurhoo alias Barsati. At the bottom also the thumb impression is described as Shanker Dayal alias Bhola. Ex. Ka-3, the receipt is, however, very suspicious. It is on a printed form and it appears originally the name was Shanker Dayal son of Ghurhoo but the style of writing and the ink differs and makes it clear that 'Urf Bhola' after 'Shanker' and 'Urf Barsati' after 'Ghuroo' was added subsequently. In the memo. Ex. Ka-3 purporting to be given by the vendor acknowledging the taking of sample from him the person is described merely as Shanker Dayal Pasi. It is true that all these papers contained very clear thumb impressions of the vendor and the matter could have been placed beyond doubt if only the thumb impression of the applicant was compared with these thumb impressions. This was not attempted by the prosecution or even by the Magistrate. In fact the thumb impression of the applicant on his statement appears to be too blurred to admit of any comparison. This weakness in the case gets compounded when we find that the prosecution was launched very late although the report of the Public Analyst had been received in August, 1977. Even the sanction for prosecution does not appear to have been obtained till 16-5-1978 or just before the launching to the suspension created by the vendor's description in the papers with aliases to his and his father's name that there has been some juggling of names in the papers of this sample for reasons which are not clear. It is of utmost importance that the Food Inspector prepares the documents of sample taking with great care and without any ambiguity for these result in severe punishment for the vendor in cases where the offence is proved. In the circumstances of this case I am not satisfied about the identity of the person from whom the sample was taken. The mere fact that the applicant applied for analysis by the Director Central Food Laboratory which has been relied upon by the appellate court is of no consequence for proving his identity.