VASAMSETTY SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and sentence passed in Crl. A No.72 of 1994 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner was charged and found guilty for the offence under Section 16(1) read with Sections 7 and 2(ia)(m) of the Food Adulteration Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act (in short 'the Act') requires that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) of sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. In this case the Food Inspector took the assistance of PW2 and another to act as mediators. PW2 though stated in favour of the prosecution in the chief-examination went back and gave contradictory answers in the cross-examination. But the prosecution did not declare this witness as hostile. Therefore., the evidence given by PW2 is of doubtful nature and is not worthy of any credence. It is submitted that when PW2's evidence became shaky, the prosecution did not take care to examine another mediator, and therefore, the entire prosecution merely depends upon PW1 who is the Food Inspector and who is interested in the success of the case of the prosecution, and the uncorraborated evidence of PW1 therefore cannot be taken on its face value. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in Chainsukh Tiwari v. Kamal Kishore, 1995 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 335. In this case it was held that it is not proper to accept the uncorrab orated testimony of the complainant. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in R. Balakrishna v. State of A.P., 1996 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 59, in support of the same contention.