LAWS(MPH)-1992-4-56

RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On April 28, 1992
RAMNATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the accused challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 18 -12 -1982 around 11 to 12 noon applicant Ramnath was seen carrying milk in two cans from village Imlidih to Ghargoda, when he was stopped by Food Inspector Shri P. C. Sikri (PW -1) in village Imlidih itself. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from the applicant measuring 660 ml. The sample was put into 3 glass bottles, which were duly packed and sealed. One of the bottles was sent by the Food Inspector to public Analyst Bhopal for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report, Ex. P -10, reported that the sample milk contained milk fat 40% and milk solids not fat (I. B. SNP) 7.11%. Milk was said to be mixture of cow and buffalo milk. It was below standard and hence was adulterated.

(3.) THE first point urged by learned counsel for the applicant was that evidence of independent Panch witness Sushil Kumar (PW -2) ought to have been accepted by the Courts below and the applicant acquitted It was emphasised that this witness was not even declared hostile by the prosecution and therefore the prosecution was bound by what he deposed. There is no force in this submission. A reading of the evidence of this witness would show that he was a self confessed liar. The statement of this witness was recorded on two dates viz 5 -1 -1987 and 20 -1 -1987 On the first date his examination -in -chief and cross examination before charge were recorded. On the second date his further cross -examination after charge was recorded. On the first date, this witness deposed in his examination -in -chief that applicant Ramnath was keeping milk for sale with him in village Imlidih. The Food inspector was sitting in the shop of the witness in village Imlidih. It was further the evidence of this witness that Food. Inspector then took a sample of milk from applicant Ramnath He did not however remember in how many bottles the sample milk was taken. He did not even remember if Food Inspector had given any money to the applicant. The Food Inspector had closed and sealed the bottles. He had attested writings Exs. P -3 and P -4 prepared at the spot. In cross -examination before charge, this witness made an admission that the Food Inspector had not cleaned the sample bottles in his presence. Even this admission would not lead to an inference that sample bottles were not clean. What the witness meant to say was only the fact that cleaning of the bottles was not done by Food Inspector in his presence. On the second date during further cross -examination after charge this witness made a complete departure from his previous evidence. He went on to say that he had not seen any kind of milk with the applicant Departing from previous story he also stated that there were 3 sample bottles, all of which were already lying in his shop and were in a dirty condition In Court questioning the witness felt cornered to admit that his evidence given on 5 -1 -1987 to the effect that applicant Ramnath was having milk for sale with him, was false. This witness was thus on his own admission a person who had perjured himself on the previous occasion. He was self -confesses liar. Nothing more was needed for disbelieving his entire evidence irrespective of the fact whether he bad been declared hostile or not. The two Courts below did not commit any error in disbelieving the evidence of this witness and in relying upon the solitary testimony of Food Inspector Shri P. C. Sikri (PW -I). There was no legal bar to acceptance of the sole -testimony of the Food Inspector. The evidence of the Food Inspector Shri Sikri fully proved the prosecution story against the applicant, including the fact that the sample bottles were in proper condition and were duly sealed and picked