TURSHAN PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.1.89 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge I, in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1987 whereby he has upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist Turshan Pal Singh for offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act).

(2.) The facts are briefly that Sri Baikunthi Narain Saksena, Food Inspector, filed a criminal complaint in the court of Munsif Magistrate against the revisionist for offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act stating therein that on 20.4.1983 at about 9.30 A.M., he (Food Inspector) took the sample of the milk sold by the revisionist; that the milk was sent for chemical examination; that adulteration was reported by the chemical analyst hence the complaint was filed in the trial court. The statements of P.W.1 Sri Baikunthi Narain Saksena (Food Inspector ) and P.W.2 Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (another Food Inspector) were recorded in the trial court. The Magistrate convicted the revisionist under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine the revisionist was further directed to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed, hence this revision.

(3.) The glaring aspect of this case is that no public witness was examined in the trial court by the complainant. Sub-Section 7 of Section 10 of the Act lays down that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of Sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The words "one or more persons" occurring in Section 10(7) of the Act means "one or more independent persons". An employee of the Department of Food Inspector, who was already accompanying the Food Inspector is not the "person called" by the Food Inspector . The person, enumerated in Section 10(7) of the Act, may be called from the same locality where the sample was taken, or may be called, in appropriate circumstances, from another locality.