PARMESHWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parmeshwari,applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000. The order was confirmed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, by his order dated 25-3-77 in Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1975.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 25-11-74, the Food Inspector, Suresh Agrawal checked the applicant,and took sample of the milk which was sent to the Public Analyst. It was found deficient in fat contents by 13% and non-fatty solids by 26% when was judged by the standard of buffalo milk. The applicant was duly prosecuted. The applicant took the plea that it was cow's milk. He also pleaded not guilty and pleaded that his signatures were obtained by the Food Inspector as a witness. Both the lower courts found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.

(3.) One of the grounds urged is that the Food Inspector was not duly qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector and as such the sample taken by him was illegal. It was elicited in his cross-examination that he had got only High School Certificate with science and that he had not taken any training as Food Inspector after his appointment as such on 16-2-1974. The matter was not pursued further. It was not put to him whether he had undergone any training earlier or not. It was also not put to him whether he had been Sanitary Inspector. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that he was not qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector under Rule 8. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that it was also the duty of the court or of the prosecuting counsel to clarify by way of further examination whether he had been a Sanitary Inspector and whether he had undergone training earlier. It would certainly have been proper that the prosecuting counsel should have re-examined this witness when some damaging statement had been made by him in the cross-examination but at the same time it was the duty of the cross-examiner to have proved fully on the basis of cross-examination that he was not duly qualified. One course open to me was to remand the case for this purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, prayed that the case may not be remanded. Under Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption is that all official acts are regularly performed.