RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Chander petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class at Bulandshahr. He was sentenced to undergo six month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge against his aforesaid conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed. He has now filed this revision.

(2.) The petitioner has a shop in a Village Chaderu within the circle of police station Sikandrabad in the district of Bulandshahr. It is said that at about 12'o clock in the noon of 23 6.1972 Tejpal Singh PW1 is the Food Inspector of Sikandrabad Block, found edible oil exposed for sale at petitioner's shop. He purchased 375 grams of that oil for sample purposes after giving due notice to the petitioner and paying its price to him in lieu of a receipt. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found a lot of Moongphali oil mixed therein and reported that it was adulterated. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and stated that no sample was taken from him and his signature was obtained by the Food Inspector on two papers with the representation that the same was required for making him a witness. Mohmmad Shami Khan D.W. 1 was examined by the petitioner in his defence. The courts below have rejected his defence evidence and relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

(3.) It has been firstly, contented before me that because there is no independent witness of taking sample by the Food Inspector so that factum of taking of sample ought not to have been believed by the courts below. Tejpal Singh P.W.1 Banarsi Dass P.W.2 and Mahesh Kumar P.W.3 have stated about the purchase of the alleged sample from the petitioner. Exs. Ka 1 and Ka. 2 bear petitioner's signature and they support the testimony of those witnesses. Affixing of his signature by the petitioner on those papers is admitted by him. His explanation and defence evidence to the effect that petitioner's signatures were obtained on those papers fraudulently cannot be accepted because the petitioner is an illiterate person. It is true that Banarsi Dass and Mahesh Kumar Pws are employees of the Health Department but on that account alone they cannot be disbelieved. The Food Inspector has explained that no other man of public came to petitioner's shop when sample was obtained. There is consequently no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence about the taking of sample.