HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order of the 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur maintaining the order of conviction passed upon the Applicant Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment, coupled with a fine of Rs. 1,00/ -.

(2.) THE Applicant is said to have exposed mustard oil for sale at his shop, a sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector. It was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst reported that it was mixed with a large quantity of linseed oil. After receipt of the report of the public Analyst the Applicant was challenged. He was tried, convicted and sentenced by the magistrate. On appeal, the lower appellate court -dismissed the appeal, but instead of rigorous imprisonment ordered the Applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, coupled with the fine imposed by the trial court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that on the question as to whether the Applicant had exposed the mustard oil for sale there was only the evidence of the Food Inspector. This argument has no force. There is a clear finding by the trial court, which was accepted by the lower appellate court, that the Applicant had exposed mustard oil for sale. It was not necessary for the prosecution to have examined witnesses in whose presence this sample was taken. All that Section 10 of the Act requires is that the sample has to be taken in the presence of witnesses. This section was complied with by the Food Inspector at the time the sample was taken. In order to prove this fact the evidence of a number of witnesses is not necessary. It is only the quality of evidence and not the quantum of evidence which matters. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court have believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and it cannot be said that they were in any way wrong in doing so.