RAM PARKASH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition by Ram Parkash. He was convicted by Shri Harnam Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, by his judgment dated January 31, 1968 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1.000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, Shri Asa Singh Gill, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by his judgment dated June 1,1968, maintained the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as Tinder:

(3.) THERE is no doubt that in course of cross -examination, it was admitted by Piara Lal P.W. that Krishan Lal brother of the Petitioner involved him in a corruption case for offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that because of that case he was suspended on August 25, 1967. The recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner took place on April 15, 1967. Piara Lal P.W. was suspended on August 25, 1967. The Petitioner did not pursue the matter further in course of cross -examination of Piara Lal P.W. to elicit the information about the date when complaint or report had been made by Krishan Lal for prosecution of Piara Lal for offence of corruption nor any documentary evidence has been placed on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against prior to the date of April 15, 1967 when he effected recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner. The plea of enmity on the part of Piara Lal against the Petitioner was raised by the Petitioner. It was incumbent upon him not apply to substantiate the facts pertaining to that plea but also to establish that Piara Lal had been prosecuted at the instance of Krishan lal brother of the Petitioner before the date of recovery of sample of milk from the possession of the Petitioner. It was open to him to do so not only by further cross -examining Piara Lal on the subject but also by placing documentary evidence on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against for corruption at the instance of the Petitioner prior to the date of occurrence in the present case.