KISHORE RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. This revision arises out of an order of conviction passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, convicting the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 000/ -.

(2.) THE applicant had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge Ghazipur, which was finally heard by the II Additional Sessions Judge, who also con firmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant, as stated above.

(3.) HOWEVER, the main contention is that no signatures of the applicant were obtained by the Food Inspector on the sealed sample phial, which was allegedly sealed by him at the spot immediately after taking the sample. In the opinion of the learned Counsel for the applicant this raises serious doubt about the genuine ness of the prosecution story as also the analyst's report. It is a requirement under the law that the signatures of the vendor be obtained on the sample phials. Whether they are mandatory or are directory is not the question so relevant. If the Food Inspector has failed to obtain signature of the applicant on the phials itself, an in ference can be drawn against the genuine ness of such a sample. This requirement of obtaining the signature has been enjoined upon a Food Inspector not for the purpose of its violation. There is a purpose behind this provision and it is to ensure that the sample have not been changed or in any manner subverted tampered with. Non-obtaining of the signature by the Food Inspector of the applicant on the phials thus raises serious doubt. It is unaccep table that a person, who has already signed the documents, will refuse to sign the sample phial. Explanation offered by the Food Inspector that the applicant had refused to sign and moved away is not acceptable to me in the circumstances of this case at all. He appears to have forgot ten to take the same but apparently failed to muster courage to say so in a straight forward manner or the sample is not the same which was taken from the applicant.