VED SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. P. Mathur, J. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st of Muzaffarnagar convicted Ved Singh under Sec. 7 (3) read with S. 16 (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, he was further sen tenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Magistrate also con victed Ved Singh under Sec 7 (1) read with Sec. (16) (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1000 and to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. In default of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of three months was also provided. This order is dated 27-1-1988.

(2.) A criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1981 was prefer red by Ved Singh and it come up for hearing before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Vide his order dated Octobers, 1981 he dismissed the appeal in toto and maintained the order of conviction and sentence. Now Ved Singh has come up to this Court through this revision.

(3.) THE arguments which have been canvassed before me are almost the same as were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge and they have been dealt there was absence of complaince of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the contrary, the evidence was that the sample was taken in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Pala and Boora, both sons of Lakhi. Section 10 only lays down that two independent witnesses should be called at the time when the sample is taken. THEre was complete compliance of his provision of law. Of course, these witnesses were not examined because in his statement the Inspector gave out that they had been won over. This fact appears to be correct when peruse the statement of Pala. He was examined as a defence witness in this case. He said that the sample was taken in his presence and he had signed all the documents but his contention is that no price was paid to the accused and the accused had told that he was carrying milk to the house of his employer. Now in this respect Pala's statement has rightly been discarded because it goes against the record on which he has also placed his signatures. Moreover, the story that the accused revisionist had disclosed that he was taking the milk to his employer is also falsified by the very fact that according to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the employer was Dharampal but according to D. W. 2 Raj Kumar, he was the employer and not Dharampal. THEre is thus contradiction and it appears that Raj Kumar is a made up witness and the Dharampal has not been examined because he would not have supported the defence version. Even the sale to the Inspector is sale for the purposes of the Act and in this case the sale of milk for price is established beyond doubt from the testimony of the Inspector and the documentary evidence, the execution of which is admitted even to the witness Pala. THEre is no absence of compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act.