OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was found present in bakery shop whereat were displayed about ten kilograms of biscuits for sale. Dr. Ajit Singh, Food Inspector, arrived at the scene in order to take samples of those biscuits for the purpose of testing them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner then gave him a push and slipped away. On such conduct of the petitioner, Dr. Ajit Singh on 27.4.79 wrote a memorandum verified by his companion Dr. Sat Pal Mahajan, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur. The Food Inspector filed a complaint under Section 61(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act against the petitioner accompanied by memorandum dated 27.4.1979. In support of the complaint. Dr. Ajit Singh alone stepped into the witness box. the other witnesses were given up as unnecessary. The trial Court relied on his statement, ignoring the statement of the petitioner that it was his son who was the licensed dealer of the backery and that he had nothing to do with it. The petitioner was imposed the minimum sentence required under the law i.e. six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. His appeal to the appellate Court was an exercise in futility. Now, he is in revision in this Court.

(2.) TWO point have been raised before me. It is firstly contended that the conviction of the petitioner should not be based on the sole testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, especially when no corroboration is forthcoming form any quarters. It is true that the prosecution has chosen to examine only Dr. Ajit Singh and none other. But, I fail to see why Dr. Ajit Singh should be telling the lie and especially against the petitioner whom he had no animus. It cannot be forgotten that the memorandum dated 27.4.1979 was prepared by him there and then, verified by Dr. Sat Pal Mahajan. The said memorandum accompanied the complaint. The memorandum is substantially in accord with the statement on oath made by the said witness in Court. A slight omission in the statement in Court about the abuses said to have been given by the petitioner to the Food Inspector, mentioned in the memorandum, is of no consequence. Thus, to my mind, the conviction on the sole testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh Bains, cannot be questioned. The second contention raised is that the view taken by a Division bench of this Court in Krishan Lal etc. v. State of Haryana, 1978 PLR 533, holding that when a person slips away when confronted by the Food Inspector to take samples, he commits offence of preventing the Food Inspector from taking samples punishable under section 61(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act, needs be questioned in view of a latter Full -Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Narayan Prasad v. The State of Rajasthan and another, 1978 Criminal Law Journal 1445, and a single Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Chhedi Lal and another v. Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Faizabad and another, 1980 Criminal Law Journal 367. In my view, sitting singly, I cannot doubt the ratio of the Division Bench in Krishan Lal's case (supra) on the touch -stone of the view taken by other High Courts. The point raised is just to be left at that.

(3.) AT the fag -end it was contended that it could well be that the petitioner was casual care -taker at the shop and had been confronted by the Food Inspector at an inopportune moment. No date is available on the record to substantiate such a plan and, thus, it is not for me to conjecture in that regard. No weight can be given to such a suggestion.