LAUDHAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the order and judgment dated 11-5-1981 by Sri J.P. Singh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1981 by means of which the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Corporation Magistrate, was confirmed.

(2.) Very briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 31-8-1977 at about 8.30 A. M. the Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk from the accused. The accused was taking it on Feri for sale. The Food Inspector paid the price of this milk at Rs. 1.32 p and divided the sample in three parts and sealed them in three clean phials One of these when sent to the Public Analyst was found deficient in its fatty contents by 4?% and in its non-fatty contents by 52%. Since the sample was found to be adulterated sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was obtained and the applicant prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) In this case the notice given to the applicant in form No. 6 which is Ext. Ka. 1 has the dates, when this sample was taken, written. At two places 21-8-1977 which was initially written as the date when the sample was taken was changed to 31-8-1977 and at one place the date as written Initially 1. e. 21-8-1977 has been left over as it is. On the back of this notice Man Mohan Misra and Prahlad Pandey have signed as witnesses and it is stated that the sample was taken in their presence. On Ext. Ka-2, however, two different witnesses Hari Shanker Lal and Shri Narain Pandey are given. It is, therefore, not possible to say in whose presence this sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector and sealed. Then in the witness box the prosecution examined only the Food Inspector in respect of the taking of this sample and neither Man Mohan Misra and Prahlad Pandey nor Sri Narain Pandey and Hari Shanker Lal were examined It has, therefore, not been shown in whose presence this sample was taken nor has it been shown that these witnesses were independent. There was thus a breach of Sec. 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in this case and since the sample was not taken properly before independent witnesses the result of the analysis could not be relied upon and the applicants could not be convicted.