(1.) THE applicant Ganesh Prasad being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 6.8.92 passed in Cr. Appeal N. 161/83 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilapsur, confirming the judgment and finding dated 7.9.83 passed in Cr. Case No. 806/92 by the learned C.J.M., Bilaspur, convicting the applicant u/s 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rs. one thousand only).
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the prosecution case are that on 17.12.81, the Food Inspector PW -1, R.R. Singh took a sample of ground nut oil from the shop of the applicant. The matter was reported to the local health authority and the part of the sample was sent for the chemical analysis. It was reported that the sample does not conform to the standard. The challan was filed against the present applicant and as he pleaded not guilty, the learned trial Court after framing the charge, recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution could successfully bring the guilt home. It accordingly as stated above awarded the sentence, which was confirmed in the appeal. Shri Manish Dutt, learned counsel for the applicant contended that in absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the case of PW -1, the learned Court below was wrong in relying upon the statement of the complainant. I am not impressed by this argument. The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that corroboration is merely the supporting evidence. In a case where other witnesses do not support the food inspector but Court finds reasons to rely upon his solitary testimony, the conviction can be based upon it. Shri Dutt took me through evidence of PW -1 and with his best efforts was unable to convince me that the Court below committed any illegality in convicting the applicant. Even otherwise while exercising the Revisional jurisdiction this Court ordinarily would not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court unless the same are shown to be perverse. It could not be shown that the findings are perverse.
(3.) THE revision is partly allowed. It is directed that the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone but the fine deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,000/ -. Shri Dutt informs me that the appellant had already deposited Rs. 1,000/ -. The balance amount be deposited within a period of two months. The revision is partly allowed on the question of sentence only to the extent indicated above.