NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an applica­tion in revision by Narain Singh against the judgment and order dated January 14, 1981 of Sri R.C. Chaturvedi, IV Additional Ses­sions Judge, Mathura, in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1980, which was dismissed and the conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that on March 29, 1979 R.B. Mathur, Food Inspector of Primary Health Centre, Chouanhan, in the District of Mathura, found the applicant Narain Singh selling milk in the Mela of NariSenri at about 9.30 a.m., which was disclosed by him to be mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchase 660 mililitres of the milk on pay­ment of Rs. 1.48 as its price. This milk was divided and sealed in three bottles and one of these when sent to the Public Ana­lyst, was found deficient in non-fatty solids by about 14 percent sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was then obtained and the applicant was prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) IT was then urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case Section 10(7) of the aforesaid Act was not complied with because the only witness, who signed the receipt was Tota Ram, Zamandar of Primary Health Centre and it was admitted to the Food Inspector that there was a considerable crowd at the spot be­cause of the Mela and no independent wit­ness was taken from this Mela. The Food Inspector also did not state that none of the persons he wanted to take as witnesses ag­reed to testify, as such. It is true that the Food Inspector did not state that no one else agreed to testify as a witness and since no independent person was taken as a wit­ness and the only witness was tota Ram, Zamandar, of Primary Health Centre, an employee of the same department as the Food Inspector. Section 10(7) was not complied with. The words "one or more Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ram Labbala v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 789, mean one or more independent person and the provisions of this sub-section are mandatory. The Food Inspector had, therefore, to take at least one independent witness when he took action under this sec­tion and because no independent witness nor was it explained how an independent witness could not be taken therefore, Sec­tion 10(7) of the Act was not complied with and it could not be held with any am­ount of certainty that the milk was really taken from the applicant.