RAM DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises out of a prosecution under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (XXXVII of 1954) At about 7-30 a. m. on 25th March, 1965, the Food Inspector K. P. Batish of Hapur Municipality in district Meerut took a sample of milk from the shop of the applicant Ram Dass. He purchased 12 chhataks of milk for 51 n. p. and sealed and signed it in three phials, one of which was given to the applicant, the other retained in the office of the Hapur Municipality and the third sent to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst found, as is indicated by his report Ex. Ka. 3, that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 21 %, the standard applied being that for mixed cow and buffalo milk the mixture of the two milks being supposed to be half and half. The applicant was consequently prosecuted under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) of the aforesaid Act. He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. He went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut. and hence this application in revision by him.

(2.) THE applicant denied that he sold any sample of milk to the Food Inspector, his allegation being, that there was milk placed in a can underneath his shop, that it belonged to one other milk seller who had come there and that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from that can and documents prepared by him were in respect of the same and he merely signed them as a witness. The applicant did not examine any evidence in his defence. The prosecution evidence was considered by the Magistrate. It appears that when the sample was taken, two witnesses Shadi Ram and Nathi were required to sign the documents prepared at the time, including the receipt which was given to the applicant, but none of them was examined in the case. The oral evidence in the case consists of the testimony of the Food Inspector, K. P. Batish and one other person, Charan Singh, who is said to have been present when this sample was taken.

(3.) IT has been observed by Das Gupta, J. himself in the aforesaid case itself that the point involved for decision in such cases is a pure question of fact. What has, therefore, to be seen in a particular case is whether on the basis of the evidence which has been examined in the case it can be believed that the sample which was found to be adulterated was taken by the Food Inspector or if the evidence produced is unreliable or shaky or of a doubtful nature. Even if the evidence is not altogether unreliable, if it is shaky or doubtful in nature, the Courts would certainly give the benefit of the same to the accused; but if the evidence establishes that the sample was taken from the shop of a particular dealer, then even though no witness has been called in the witness box in support of the statement of the Food Inspector, there is no reason why his solitary statement may not be believed. Normally the prosecution will no doubt examine one or more of the witnesses whose signatures are obtained on the documents prepared at the time of the taking of the sample, but if for some reason or the other the prosecution does not rely upon their statements, or does not find it possible to examine them as witnesses in the case, surely the prosecution case will not be thrown out on that account. The prosecution is entitled to urge that the truth of the allegations which are being made against an accused person may be judged on the basis of the evidence which is in fact examined in the case and if that evidence is satisfactory and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the truth thereof, then the prosecution can very well urge that even though certain witnesses may not have been examined, the Court should record a finding of guilty against the accused.