RAMNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is on behalf of Sri Ram Nath Prasad, Manager and Sri Raghaw Prasad owner of a shop from where the Food Inspector Sri B.N. Saikia PW-1 collected sample of Chillies Powder on 9.2.1989. Food sample was collected and was got analysed from the public Analyst and it was found to contain coal for colour which is not permissible. After going through the due process the petitioners were sent up for trial. Prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. the Food Inspector and his Peon Sri Kiran Chandra Das. Vide judgment of the trial Court dated 20.10.93 the petitioners were convicted for storing and selling adulterated Chillies Powder violating sub-section l(a) u/s 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and they were convicted under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them to R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for a period of two months. The appeal by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge Golaghat did not bear any fruit and the same was dismissed on 10th June, 1994. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant raised same arguments as were raised before the Courts below.

(3.) The first point urged is that there was violation of Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as no independent witness was called by the Food Inspector while taking sample. PW-1 the Food Inspector in his statement deposed that he had asked the customers present in the shop to become witnesses but they refused and on their refusal he had asked his peon to become a witness. This statement of PW-1 has not been seriously challenged in the cross examination. However, this should not detain me inasmuch as taking of the sample from the shop was not denied or disputed by the accused Sri Ram Nath Prasad in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; rather taking of the sample and dividing them into 3 packets was admitted. That being so non-joining of independent witnesses under the circumstances, as stated above, become meaningless. There was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as the Inspector had tried to get independent witnesses while taking the sample./