SHANTI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Shanti Prasad against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Gonda, dismissing his appeal against his conviction under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months* R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo six months' R. I. passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector Sri B. H. Saini against the applicant and one Rajit Ram. It was alleged that an 13-10-74 he found the applicant taking milk in a can for sale near the railway crossing of Subhapur, P. S. Intiafhok, Gonda. He took a sample from that milk. THE applicant is said to be a man of Rajitram. THE milk was found to be adulterated being 12 percent deficient in non-fatty solids according to the buff alow milk standard.

(3.) THE prosecution in this case had examined besides the Food Inspector, one Deo Datta PW 2 a public witness. THE learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 10 (7). But actually it is not so. It was admitted that a sample had also been taken by the Food Inspector from this person at that very time. He was thus clearly under the thumb of the Food Inspector. Such a person could hardly be called an independent witness. As held in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 789, Ram Labhaya v. State, the provisions of this subsection are mandatory and it is incumbent upon the Food Inspector to call one or more persons to be present when such action is taken. It was also clearly held that the words 'one or more persons' used in this sub-section means one or more independent persons. So merely making Deo Datta as a witness cannot be said to be a compliance of this mandatory provision of law. As a matter of fact this practice as adopted by the Food Inspector can hardly be supported. This is a wrong method to evade the salutary provisions of this sub-section.