NAV RATAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.84 passed in Criminal Appeal no.27/84 by the then Sessions Judge, Moradabad, whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist for the offences u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of "The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act" (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) In the case in hand only two witnesses were examined, who are P.W.1 Namo Narain (Food Inspector) and P.W.2 Fateh Singh, Food Clerk.

(3.) The glaring aspect of this case is that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The directions contained in sub section (7) of Section 10 of the Act, are imperative. Its compliance was necessary. If the witnesses mentioned in sub Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act are not produced in court to affirm on oath that the action by Food Inspector, was taken in their presence and that they had signed the relevant papers at the time when the sample was taken, the object of sub Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act is bound to frustrate.