MIAN JAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Mian Jan against the judgment and order dated 30.6.81 by Sri P.N. Mohilay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1980 by means of which he uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act [ hereinafter referred to as the Act as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case that on 29.6.1977 the Food Inspector purchased milk from the applicant at about 9 a.m. near the old octroi post, Cheski Sagar Lal in the municipal area of Moradabad. This was sent to the Public Analyst and was found deficient in non-fatty solids by 32 per cent. Sanction of the health authorities was, obtained and the applicant and convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case only two witnesses were taken by the Food Inspector, namely, Nawab Ali and Ram Kishan and since both of them were Safai Zamadars and were employees of the Municipal Board like the Board Inspector himself, therefore, these witnesses were not independent witnesses and the provisions of Sec. 10(7) of the Act were not complied with and had been breached. Sec. 10(7) of the Act provides that when the Food Inspector takes action under clause (a) of sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) he shall, call one or more persons to be present. This would mean that when a sample is taken by a Food Inspector at least one or more person have to be called by him as witnesses. This provision has been interpreted to mean that one of two " independent witnesses should be called by the food inspector when he takes sample.