STATE Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. B. Singh, J. This is a State appeal against the order of acuittal of Jagdish Prasad respondent, from the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteteration Act passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on 30-6-1980 R. K. Agniholri, Food Inspector, along with Madan Lal, Vaccinator, went to village Raghipur (Bhuwan Sbahpur Mela), Sultanpur, and found there that Jagdish Prasad, respon dent, was selling sweets at his shop. THE Food Inspector tried to take sample of Imarti, which was coloured one, but Jagdish Prasad did not permit him to do so. He prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample by throwing Imanies on the ground, pushing the Food Inspector aside and crushing the Imarties by toot. THE Food Inspector wrote a report on the spot and obtained the signatures on it. When the Food Inspector enquired from Jagdish Prasad if he had any licence to sell sweetmeats he could not produce it and the Food Inspector found that he was selling them without any licence. THE Food Inspector, therefore, obtained sanction of the Chief Medical Officer and filed complaint against Jagdish Prasad for selling articles of food without licence though licence was required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and he prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereby he committed offences punishable under Sections 7/16 (l) (a) (ii) and 16 (i) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) found Jagdish Prasad guilty of both the offences. He convict ed and sentenced him under Section 7 read with Section 16 (l) (a) (ii) to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2000 and under Section 16 (l) (c) to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2000. It was further ordered that in case of default in payment of fine Jagdish Prasad shall undergo R. I. for one year against each fine. Against this Jagdish Prasad preferred appeal which was allowed on the ground that sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer was not duly proved. Feeling dissatis fied with this judgment the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) SECTION 47 of the Evidence Act lays down that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the hand- writing of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. The statement of the Food Inspector is that by placing the relevant material before the Chief Medical Officer he obtained the sanction duly signed for the prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulte ration Act. His statement further indicates that in obtaining such sanctions he could be familiar with his signatures. Under these circumstances it could be said that R. K. Agnihotri, Food Inspector, was acquainted with the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer and his opinion about the signature could be a relevant fact under SECTION 47 of the Evidence Act. His statament which was left uncross-examined could, therefore, be taken as a sufficient proof of the fact that sanction bears the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur.