BRAHM DUTT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRAHM Dutt, Iqbal and Kallu, applicants, have come up in revision against the order passed by the learned Civil & Sessions Judge, Meerut whereby he dismissed the applicants' appeal and maintained their convections under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 12-4-1972 the Food Inspector Sri Lalit Prakash Mittal found the applicants carrying milk for sale, that he: purchased samples from them and duly sealed the samples in phials and completed other formalities and thereafter when he was about to leave two other persons Jumma and Habib (who were also prosecuted but were acquitted by the appellate Court) came to that place and snatched the phials, threw them away causing them to break and also tore the papers. It was said that thereupon the: applicants also joined in the snatching; of the samples and papers.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants contended that the evidence of the Food Inspector was wholly unreliable and the learned appellate court was in error in convicting the applicants on its basis. Now, in revision findings of fact are normally not disturbed. But in this case something has come in the evidence of the Food Inspector himself which to my mind cuts at the very root of its evidence and in such a case I think interference even with the findings of fact cannot be avoided.